Pipkin v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Pipkin v. State

887 S.W.2d 309, 318 Ark. 762

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 21, 1994

DocketCR 94-515

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 887 S.W.2d 309 (Pipkin 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

Pipkin v. State, 887 S.W.2d 309, 318 Ark. 762 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On May 17, 1994, Ivan Floyd Pipkin appealed his conviction in the Stone County Circuit Court, Case No. 91-36, and lodged the record of trial in this court. On June 24, Pip-kin’s attorney, A. Wayne Davis, Little Rock, Arkansas, requested a seven-day clerk’s extension, making his brief due on July 5, 1994.

On June 27, 1994, Mr. Davis, by letter, confirmed the clerk’s extension and acknowledged that the appellant’s brief would be due on Tuesday, July 5, 1994. On October 27, 1994, our clerk, Mr. Steen, mailed a letter to Mr. Davis advising him that the records indicated that a brief had not been filed or tendered in the appellant’s behalf, nor had a further motion for an extension of time been granted. In addition, the clerk called-for a response to his letter, to which Mr. Davis has not replied.

For these reasons, we set a hearing date on Monday, December 5, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., and direct Pipkin’s counsel, A. Wayne Davis, to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the abstract and brief in this cause.

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

Per Curiam.

On May 17, 1994, Ivan Floyd Pipkin appealed his conviction in the Stone County Circuit Court, Case No. 91-36, and lodged the record of trial in this court. On June 24, Pip-kin’s attorney, A. Wayne Davis, Little Rock, Arkansas, requested a seven-day clerk’s extension, making his brief due on July 5, 1994.

On June 27, 1994, Mr. Davis, by letter, confirmed the clerk’s extension and acknowledged that the appellant’s brief would be due on Tuesday, July 5, 1994. On October 27, 1994, our clerk, Mr. Steen, mailed a letter to Mr. Davis advising him that the records indicated that a brief had not been filed or tendered in the appellant’s behalf, nor had a further motion for an extension of time been granted. In addition, the clerk called-for a response to his letter, to which Mr. Davis has not replied.

For these reasons, we set a hearing date on Monday, December 5, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., and direct Pipkin’s counsel, A. Wayne Davis, to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to file the abstract and brief in this cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

887 S.W.2d 309, 318 Ark. 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pipkin-v-state-ark-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack