Perry v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Perry v. State

906 S.W.2d 285, 321 Ark. 568, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 531

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 18, 1995

DocketCR 95-752

StatusPublished

This text of 906 S.W.2d 285 (Perry 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

Perry v. State, 906 S.W.2d 285, 321 Ark. 568, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 531 (Ark. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant asks this court to issue a writ of certiorari to complete the record. We deny the writ.

On December 13, 1994, appellant was convicted of two felonies and sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment. On January 10, 1995, he gave notice of appeal. On the same page as the notice of appeal, and immediately below the notice, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for a seven-month extension to prepare the record because of counsel’s “current commitments.” The trial court erroneously granted the extension. See Jacobs v. State, Per Curiam this same date.

A letter from the court reporter, which is on file in this case, states that the court reporter was not given notice of the appeal until June 24, 1995, or long after the original ninety days for filing the transcript had passed. In fact, it was only two weeks before the full seven-month period expired. We are fully aware that there has been no finding of fact by the trial court that the court reporter’s letter is accurate, but clearly appellant has not stated a valid ground for us to grant certiorari directed to the court reporter.

Writ denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant asks this court to issue a writ of certiorari to complete the record. We deny the writ.

On December 13, 1994, appellant was convicted of two felonies and sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment. On January 10, 1995, he gave notice of appeal. On the same page as the notice of appeal, and immediately below the notice, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for a seven-month extension to prepare the record because of counsel’s “current commitments.” The trial court erroneously granted the extension. See Jacobs v. State, Per Curiam this same date.

A letter from the court reporter, which is on file in this case, states that the court reporter was not given notice of the appeal until June 24, 1995, or long after the original ninety days for filing the transcript had passed. In fact, it was only two weeks before the full seven-month period expired. We are fully aware that there has been no finding of fact by the trial court that the court reporter’s letter is accurate, but clearly appellant has not stated a valid ground for us to grant certiorari directed to the court reporter.

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

906 S.W.2d 285, 321 Ark. 568, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-state-ark-1995.