Lewis v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Lewis v. State

64 S.W.3d 753, 347 Ark. 438, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 20

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 17, 2002

DocketCR 01-1327

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 S.W.3d 753 (Lewis 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

Lewis v. State, 64 S.W.3d 753, 347 Ark. 438, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 20 (Ark. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

P ER CURIAM.

Lee Charles Lewis, by his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. The motion admits that the record was not timely filed and that it was no fault of the appellant’s counsel but rather was due to unforeseen casualty.

This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on clerk when the attorney admits that the record was not timely filed due to an error on his part. See, e.g., Tarry v. State, 288 Ark. 172, 702 S.W.2d 804 (1986). Here, the attorney does not admit fault on his part. We have held that a statement that it was someone else’s fault or no one’s fault will not suffice. Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986). Therefore, appellant’s motion must be denied.

If the appellant’s attorney shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the transcript, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

The present motion for rule on the clerk is denied.

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