Hudspeth v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hudspeth v. State

61 S.W.3d 842, 347 Ark. 298, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 680

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 13, 2001

DocketCR 01-1222

StatusPublished

This text of 61 S.W.3d 842 (Hudspeth 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.W.3d 842, 347 Ark. 298, 2001 Ark. LEXIS 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudspeth-v-state-ark-2001.