Donihoo v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Donihoo v. State

968 S.W.2d 626, 333 Ark. 340, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 333

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 21, 1998

DocketCR 97-766

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 968 S.W.2d 626 (Donihoo 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

Donihoo v. State, 968 S.W.2d 626, 333 Ark. 340, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 333 (Ark. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Larry Donihoo’s petition for Rule 37 relief was denied on March 11, 1997, and he filed a notice of appeal from that denial on March 31, 1997. Donihoo’s counsel, Charles A. Potter, sent a transcript of the case which was received by this court’s clerk on July 9, 1997, but counsel failed to file his brief which was due on August 18, 1997. As a consequence, the State filed its motion to dismiss on March 23, 1998, which we granted on April 16, 1998. On April 24, 1998, Donihoo’s counsel, Mr. Potter, moved to set aside our order dismissing the appeal, and in doing so, he conceded it was his responsibility to file a timely brief, but he faded to do so, which caused the dismissal. On May 13, 1998, Donihoo filed a pro se motion asking us to reinstate his appeal.

We grant Donihoo’s and his counsel’s motions, but because Mr. Potter without explanation has delayed nearly nine months in filing a brief, causing dismissal of Donihoo’s appeal, we order Mr. Potter to appear before this court on the 4th day of June, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

Corbin, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Larry Donihoo’s petition for Rule 37 relief was denied on March 11, 1997, and he filed a notice of appeal from that denial on March 31, 1997. Donihoo’s counsel, Charles A. Potter, sent a transcript of the case which was received by this court’s clerk on July 9, 1997, but counsel failed to file his brief which was due on August 18, 1997. As a consequence, the State filed its motion to dismiss on March 23, 1998, which we granted on April 16, 1998. On April 24, 1998, Donihoo’s counsel, Mr. Potter, moved to set aside our order dismissing the appeal, and in doing so, he conceded it was his responsibility to file a timely brief, but he faded to do so, which caused the dismissal. On May 13, 1998, Donihoo filed a pro se motion asking us to reinstate his appeal.

We grant Donihoo’s and his counsel’s motions, but because Mr. Potter without explanation has delayed nearly nine months in filing a brief, causing dismissal of Donihoo’s appeal, we order Mr. Potter to appear before this court on the 4th day of June, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

Corbin, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

968 S.W.2d 626, 333 Ark. 340, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donihoo-v-state-ark-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack