In re Counsel's Failure to File Timely Briefs in Criminal Appeals

Supreme Court of Arkansas

In re Counsel's Failure to File Timely Briefs in Criminal Appeals

635 S.W.2d 264, 276 Ark. 427, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1437

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 28, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 S.W.2d 264 (In re Counsel's Failure to File Timely Briefs in Criminal Appeals) 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

In re Counsel's Failure to File Timely Briefs in Criminal Appeals, 635 S.W.2d 264, 276 Ark. 427, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1437 (Ark. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Rector v. State, No. CR 82-36, the appellant’s brief was not filed when due. His attorney, Ron Heller, obtained two extensions of time and in each instance failed to file the brief. A third request for an extension was denied, for want of any showing of good cause.

Mr. Heller has now filed another motion, stating that he has not been properly diligent, admitting that the complete fault is his, and asking that the court allow the brief to be filed out of time. To deny this motion would as a practical matter establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In accordance with our practice in the corresponding situation when the record is not filed on time owing to the fault of counsel, see Per Curiam order of February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964, we shall in this case and similar later cases permit the brief to be filed, publish a per curiam order giving the name of the lawyer, and send a copy to the Committee on Professional Conduct, to be kept in its files for the Committee’s information if a complaint of any kind should later be filed against that lawyer.

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

Per Curiam.

In Rector v. State, No. CR 82-36, the appellant’s brief was not filed when due. His attorney, Ron Heller, obtained two extensions of time and in each instance failed to file the brief. A third request for an extension was denied, for want of any showing of good cause.

Mr. Heller has now filed another motion, stating that he has not been properly diligent, admitting that the complete fault is his, and asking that the court allow the brief to be filed out of time. To deny this motion would as a practical matter establish ineffective assistance of counsel. In accordance with our practice in the corresponding situation when the record is not filed on time owing to the fault of counsel, see Per Curiam order of February 5, 1979, 265 Ark. 964, we shall in this case and similar later cases permit the brief to be filed, publish a per curiam order giving the name of the lawyer, and send a copy to the Committee on Professional Conduct, to be kept in its files for the Committee’s information if a complaint of any kind should later be filed against that lawyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 S.W.2d 264, 276 Ark. 427, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-counsels-failure-to-file-timely-briefs-in-criminal-appeals-ark-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack