Diehl v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Diehl v. State

962 S.W.2d 369, 332 Ark. 512, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 219

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 9, 1998

DocketCR 98-304

StatusPublished

This text of 962 S.W.2d 369 (Diehl 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

Diehl v. State, 962 S.W.2d 369, 332 Ark. 512, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 219 (Ark. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Edwin G. Diehl has filed a motion for belated appeal. Appellant was convicted on August 11, 1997, of driving while intoxicated, but he was not formally sentenced until September 10, 1997. The record reflects that the notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 1997; however, the judgment and commitment order was not entered until September 16, 1997. Thus, the notice of appeal was untimely and ineffective. See Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 4.

Appellant’s attorney Gene O’Daniel has assumed responsibility for failing to verify that the judgment and commitment order had been filed prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. The motion reflects that Mr. O’Daniel was mistakenly informed by Appellant’s trial counsel that the notice of appeal had to be filed by September 12, 1997. Because he has admitted responsibility for the error, we grant the motion for belated appeal. We direct that a copy of this order be filed with the Committee on Professional Conduct. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Edwin G. Diehl has filed a motion for belated appeal. Appellant was convicted on August 11, 1997, of driving while intoxicated, but he was not formally sentenced until September 10, 1997. The record reflects that the notice of appeal was filed on September 12, 1997; however, the judgment and commitment order was not entered until September 16, 1997. Thus, the notice of appeal was untimely and ineffective. See Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 4.

Appellant’s attorney Gene O’Daniel has assumed responsibility for failing to verify that the judgment and commitment order had been filed prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. The motion reflects that Mr. O’Daniel was mistakenly informed by Appellant’s trial counsel that the notice of appeal had to be filed by September 12, 1997. Because he has admitted responsibility for the error, we grant the motion for belated appeal. We direct that a copy of this order be filed with the Committee on Professional Conduct. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

962 S.W.2d 369, 332 Ark. 512, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diehl-v-state-ark-1998.