Odum v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Odum v. State

837 S.W.2d 447, 310 Ark. 398, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 527

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Odum v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 311 Ark. 576 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided September 14, 1992·No. CR 92-839·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

James Odum, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, William C. McArthur, admits by motion and brief 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 our Per Curiam opinion In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).

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.

James Odum, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, William C. McArthur, admits by motion and brief 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 our Per Curiam opinion In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).

The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Odum v. State, 837 S.W.2d 447, 310 Ark. 398, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 527 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

837 S.W.2d 447 (Odum v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.