Plugge v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Plugge v. State

750 S.W.2d 52, 295 Ark. 513, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 219

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 16, 1988

DocketRC 88-21

StatusPublished

This text of 750 S.W.2d 52 (Plugge 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

Plugge v. State, 750 S.W.2d 52, 295 Ark. 513, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 219 (Ark. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Dan W. Plugge, through his counsel, has petitioned for a rule on the clerk to file the record on appeal from his conviction of driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor.

Appellant’s counsel asserts that after entry of the judgment he ordered the transcript promptly and paid the requested deposit of $100. Counsel further informs us that a number of letters were sent by him to appellant at a Florida address informing him of the progress of the appeal and urging the timely payment of the costs of the appeal. The letters went unanswered although counsel reports that appellant now claims the letters were never received. After the time for appeal had expired counsel made a refund to appellant and informed him that the time for appeal had run. Counsel states that appellant now insists the appeal be prosecuted.

While the petition contains an assertion that counsel assumes responsibility for the failure to file the record, which would bring the case within the ambit of our Per Curiam in In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979), we find that the allegations of the petition reflect that the failure was not the fault of counsel, but was entirely attributable to the appellant. That being so, our Per Curiam has no application and the motion for a rule on the clerk is denied.

Purtle, J., concurs.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Dan W. Plugge, through his counsel, has petitioned for a rule on the clerk to file the record on appeal from his conviction of driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor.

Appellant’s counsel asserts that after entry of the judgment he ordered the transcript promptly and paid the requested deposit of $100. Counsel further informs us that a number of letters were sent by him to appellant at a Florida address informing him of the progress of the appeal and urging the timely payment of the costs of the appeal. The letters went unanswered although counsel reports that appellant now claims the letters were never received. After the time for appeal had expired counsel made a refund to appellant and informed him that the time for appeal had run. Counsel states that appellant now insists the appeal be prosecuted.

While the petition contains an assertion that counsel assumes responsibility for the failure to file the record, which would bring the case within the ambit of our Per Curiam in In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979), we find that the allegations of the petition reflect that the failure was not the fault of counsel, but was entirely attributable to the appellant. That being so, our Per Curiam has no application and the motion for a rule on the clerk is denied.

Purtle, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 S.W.2d 52, 295 Ark. 513, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plugge-v-state-ark-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack