Martin v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Martin v. State

868 S.W.2d 466, 315 Ark. 493, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 211

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 10, 1994

DocketCR 93-1314

StatusPublished

This text of 868 S.W.2d 466 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 868 S.W.2d 466, 315 Ark. 493, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 211 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Luther Martin, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Jim Pedigo, admits in his motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is 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.

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

Per Curiam.

Luther Martin, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Jim Pedigo, admits in his motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

868 S.W.2d 466, 315 Ark. 493, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-ark-1994.