Hudspeth v. State

61 S.W.3d 842, 347 Ark. 298, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 680
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hudspeth v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 349 Ark. 315
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided December 13, 2001·No. CR 01-1222·Published

Opinion

P IBR Curiam.

Appellants James Dennis Hudspeth and Johnny “Red” Hudspeth, by and through their attorney, have filed a motion for rule on clerk. Appellants’ attorney, David P. Henry, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to an illness he suffered, which he maintains constitutes excusable neglect and unavoidable casualty, thereby entitling appellants to have the record filed and the case docketed by the Clerk.

We find that the attendant circumstances do not constitute excusable neglect or unavoidable casualty; however, as the error is admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, we find 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.

ÍMBER, J„ not participating.

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

Hudspeth v. State, 61 S.W.3d 842, 347 Ark. 298, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 680 (Ark. 2001).

61 S.W.3d 842 (Hudspeth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.