Echols v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Echols v. State

120 S.W.3d 78, 353 Ark. 755

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 19, 2003

DocketCR 94-928 & CR 99-1060

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 S.W.3d 78 (Echols 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

Echols v. State, 120 S.W.3d 78, 353 Ark. 755 (Ark. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Damien Wayne Echols has filed a motion seeking a stay of the appellate proceedings in both of his pending appeals, until such time as forensic DNA testing can be completed. This court initially granted a stay for sixty days, in an opinion issued on September 12, 2002. See Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 84 S.W.3d 424 (2002) (per curiam). Thereafter, on November 14, 2002, and February 28, 2003, this court extended the stay, for a period of ninety days each time.

Appellant now seeks to extend the stay indefinitely, for as long as it takes to complete DNA testing on the items for which there is agreement by the parties. He asserts that the parties are moving forward in this matter, and that it is likely that a substantial number of evidentiary items can be tested before the end of the summer.

We grant the motion to extend the stay. We decline, however, to issue an open-ended stay, as Appellant requests. Instead, we will grant further stay for a period of seventy days from the date of this opinion. While we are mindful of our previous conclusion that the interests of justice will be better served by resolving this forensic issue before proceeding with Appellant’s appeals, we note that this matter has been pending for quite a lengthy time. We therefore give notice to the parties that this is the final extension, and we will not issue any further stays in this matter.

It is so ordered.

Corbin, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Damien Wayne Echols has filed a motion seeking a stay of the appellate proceedings in both of his pending appeals, until such time as forensic DNA testing can be completed. This court initially granted a stay for sixty days, in an opinion issued on September 12, 2002. See Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 84 S.W.3d 424 (2002) (per curiam). Thereafter, on November 14, 2002, and February 28, 2003, this court extended the stay, for a period of ninety days each time.

Appellant now seeks to extend the stay indefinitely, for as long as it takes to complete DNA testing on the items for which there is agreement by the parties. He asserts that the parties are moving forward in this matter, and that it is likely that a substantial number of evidentiary items can be tested before the end of the summer.

We grant the motion to extend the stay. We decline, however, to issue an open-ended stay, as Appellant requests. Instead, we will grant further stay for a period of seventy days from the date of this opinion. While we are mindful of our previous conclusion that the interests of justice will be better served by resolving this forensic issue before proceeding with Appellant’s appeals, we note that this matter has been pending for quite a lengthy time. We therefore give notice to the parties that this is the final extension, and we will not issue any further stays in this matter.

It is so ordered.

Corbin, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.W.3d 78, 353 Ark. 755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/echols-v-state-ark-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack