Alexander v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Alexander v. State

545 S.W.2d 606, 260 Ark. 785, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 1885

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 20, 1976

DocketCR 76-133

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 545 S.W.2d 606 (Alexander v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. State, 545 S.W.2d 606, 260 Ark. 785, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 1885 (Ark. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This capital felony case has not yet been tried. Two preliminary motions were filed, one asking that W. Palma Rainey be allowed to withdraw as appointed counsel and the other that all prosecuting attorneys, circuit judges, and circuit clerks be summoned to testify concerning the death penalty. The trial court denied both motions, its order reciting that the rulings are final for the purpose of appellate review or, alternatively, that the defendant should be allowed an interlocutory appeal.

Inasmuch as the case is still pending below, the appeal must be dismissed for want of a final judgment, a point which this court itself raises. H.E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W. 2d 880 (1970). The trial court’s attempt to enlarge our jurisdiction must fail, because the limitation of our jurisdiction to the review of final judgments and decrees is statutory. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2101 (Supp. 1975).

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George Rose Smith, Justice.

This capital felony case has not yet been tried. Two preliminary motions were filed, one asking that W. Palma Rainey be allowed to withdraw as appointed counsel and the other that all prosecuting attorneys, circuit judges, and circuit clerks be summoned to testify concerning the death penalty. The trial court denied both motions, its order reciting that the rulings are final for the purpose of appellate review or, alternatively, that the defendant should be allowed an interlocutory appeal.

Inasmuch as the case is still pending below, the appeal must be dismissed for want of a final judgment, a point which this court itself raises. H.E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W. 2d 880 (1970). The trial court’s attempt to enlarge our jurisdiction must fail, because the limitation of our jurisdiction to the review of final judgments and decrees is statutory. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2101 (Supp. 1975).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 S.W.2d 606, 260 Ark. 785, 1976 Ark. LEXIS 1885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-state-ark-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack