Grooms v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Grooms v. State

697 S.W.2d 894, 287 Ark. 220, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2260

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 21, 1985·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, William R. Grooms, by his attorney, Peter R. Darling, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his miscalculation of the seven-month maximum limit for filing the record in this Court. See Rule 5, Ark. R. App. P., Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979).

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See per curiam dated February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964; Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243 (1981).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, William R. Grooms, by his attorney, Peter R. Darling, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his miscalculation of the seven-month maximum limit for filing the record in this Court. See Rule 5, Ark. R. App. P., Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979).

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See per curiam dated February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964; Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243 (1981).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Grooms v. State, 697 S.W.2d 894, 287 Ark. 220, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 2260 (Ark. 1985).

Pincite

697 S.W.2d 894 (Grooms v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related