Hooper v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hooper v. State

820 S.W.2d 276, 307 Ark. 378, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 664

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hooper v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 311 Ark. 154 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided December 9, 1991·No. CR 91-232·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Byron Hooper, by his attorney, George W. Mason, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his negligence in meeting the ninety-day limit for filing the record in this court. See Ark. R. App. P. 5(a).

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981); In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

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

Per Curiam.

Petitioner, Byron Hooper, by his attorney, George W. Mason, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his negligence in meeting the ninety-day limit for filing the record in this court. See Ark. R. App. P. 5(a).

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981); In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

Hooper v. State, 820 S.W.2d 276, 307 Ark. 378, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 664 (Ark. 1991).

Pincite

820 S.W.2d 276 (Hooper v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related