Hall v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hall v. State

921 S.W.2d 929, 324 Ark. 431, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 281

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 13, 1996

DocketCR 95-166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 921 S.W.2d 929 (Hall 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

Hall v. State, 921 S.W.2d 929, 324 Ark. 431, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 281 (Ark. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CURIAM.

On October 11, 1995, appellant Rammie Earl Hall filed his brief pro se in his appeal from a denial of Rule 37 relief. On January 3, 1996, the State filed its brief and pointed out that Hall had failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (a) (6) in preparing its abstract. Hall then sought permission from this court to substitute a brief for the purpose of correcting the abstract in his brief, and permission was granted by per curiam order on January 16, 1996. On February 26, 1996, Hall filed his new brief.

The State now contends that Hall not only corrected his abstract but rewrote the argument portion in his substituted brief as well and that it has no opportunity to respond to the rewrite. The State asks for permission to strike the rewritten brief completely or, alternatively, that this court only consider the original brief filed by Hall.

We agree with the State that in his substituted brief Hall corrected his abstract and rewrote his argument. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion as it relates to the argument in the substituted brief.

With respect to the corrected abstract, we direct the Clerk of this court to replace the abstract in Hall’s original brief with the substituted abstract so that the appellant’s brief submitted to this court will contain the substituted abstract and the original argument.

DUDLEY, J., not participating. Glaze, J., dissents.

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

Per CURIAM.

On October 11, 1995, appellant Rammie Earl Hall filed his brief pro se in his appeal from a denial of Rule 37 relief. On January 3, 1996, the State filed its brief and pointed out that Hall had failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (a) (6) in preparing its abstract. Hall then sought permission from this court to substitute a brief for the purpose of correcting the abstract in his brief, and permission was granted by per curiam order on January 16, 1996. On February 26, 1996, Hall filed his new brief.

The State now contends that Hall not only corrected his abstract but rewrote the argument portion in his substituted brief as well and that it has no opportunity to respond to the rewrite. The State asks for permission to strike the rewritten brief completely or, alternatively, that this court only consider the original brief filed by Hall.

We agree with the State that in his substituted brief Hall corrected his abstract and rewrote his argument. Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion as it relates to the argument in the substituted brief.

With respect to the corrected abstract, we direct the Clerk of this court to replace the abstract in Hall’s original brief with the substituted abstract so that the appellant’s brief submitted to this court will contain the substituted abstract and the original argument.

DUDLEY, J., not participating. Glaze, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 S.W.2d 929, 324 Ark. 431, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-state-ark-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack