Oliver v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Oliver v. State

871 S.W.2d 332, 316 Ark. 97, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 113

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Oliver v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 322 Ark. 8 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 21, 1994·No. CR 94-113·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant, Timothy Allen Oliver, by his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney, Ms. Dana A. Reece, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on her 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 dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

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.

The appellant, Timothy Allen Oliver, by his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney, Ms. Dana A. Reece, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on her 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 dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

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

Oliver v. State, 871 S.W.2d 332, 316 Ark. 97, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 113 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

871 S.W.2d 332 (Oliver v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.