Odum v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Odum v. State

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

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 14, 1992

DocketCR 92-839

StatusPublished

This text of 837 S.W.2d 447 (Odum 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

837 S.W.2d 447, 310 Ark. 398, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odum-v-state-ark-1992.