Elizabeth Roberts Force v. State
This text of 544 S.W.3d 540 (Elizabeth Roberts Force 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.
Opinion
Hart, J., dissents.
Kemp, C.J., not participating.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
*542I dissent. The majority has affirmed this case ostensibly because "the record in this case does not include a copy of the judgment originally entered in Force's criminal case in which she was originally sentenced to pay the fine or fines at issue." Summary affirmance for this reason was abolished nearly two decades ago when Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 was amended to allow an appellant to fix a deficiency.
If the majority believes that it is unable to reach the merits due to missing documents, the proper disposition of this case is to decline to consider the case on the merits and order the appellant to cure the deficiency. See, e.g. , Bryan v. City of Cotter ,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
544 S.W.3d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-roberts-force-v-state-ark-2018.