Nance v. State

891 S.W.2d 28, 319 Ark. 292, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 33
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 17, 1995
DocketCR 94-413
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 891 S.W.2d 28 (Nance 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
Nance v. State, 891 S.W.2d 28, 319 Ark. 292, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 33 (Ark. 1995).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In accordance with our per curiam in this case delivered on November 21, 1994, Nance’s attorneys filed a motion accepting full responsibility for not timely filing a notice of appeal. However, counsel also respectfully pointed out that an amended judgment had been filed on April 11, 1994, even though no written order was ever entered denying his motion for new trial pertaining to the original conviction judgment of March 31, 1994. Counsel further noted that, on April 18, 1994, they filed a notice of appeal from the April 11, 1994 amended judgment. They suggest that notice was a timely appeal of the amended judgment irrespective of having filed an earlier new trial motion concerning Nance’s March 31 conviction judgment. We agree, and in doing so, grant Nance’s motion.

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

Related

State v. Vasquez-Aerreola
940 S.W.2d 451 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Nance v. State
918 S.W.2d 114 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 S.W.2d 28, 319 Ark. 292, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nance-v-state-ark-1995.