Fairow v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Fairow v. State

190 S.W.3d 910, 358 Ark. 365

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 9, 2004

DocketCR 04-679

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 910 (Fairow 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

Fairow v. State, 190 S.W.3d 910, 358 Ark. 365 (Ark. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Barry Fairow, by and through his attorney, Dennis R. Molock, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. Mr. Molock states in the motion that the notice of appeal was not filed in a timely fashion due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979)(per curiam).

The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant Barry Fairow, by and through his attorney, Dennis R. Molock, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. Mr. Molock states in the motion that the notice of appeal was not filed in a timely fashion due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979)(per curiam).

The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 910, 358 Ark. 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairow-v-state-ark-2004.