Austin v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Austin v. State

825 S.W.2d 608, 309 Ark. 145, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 243, 1992 WL 71157

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided April 6, 1992·No. CR 92-349·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Curtis Nathaniel Austin, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Bill E. Ross, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to.the Committee on Professional Conduct.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Curtis Nathaniel Austin, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Bill E. Ross, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to.the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Austin v. State, 825 S.W.2d 608, 309 Ark. 145, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 243, 1992 WL 71157 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

825 S.W.2d 608 (Austin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.