Elizabeth Roberts Force v. State
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
544 S.W.3d 540 (Elizabeth Roberts Force v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.