Moore v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Moore v. State

966 S.W.2d 266, 333 Ark. 272, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 297

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 14, 1998

DocketCR 98-478

StatusPublished

This text of 966 S.W.2d 266 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 966 S.W.2d 266, 333 Ark. 272, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 297 (Ark. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

George Mitchell Moore, by his attorney, has filed a motion to file belated appeal, which we will treat as 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.

This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on the 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.

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, and upon filing same, 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