Simpson v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Simpson v. State

999 S.W.2d 181, 338 Ark. 511, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 417

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 9, 1999

DocketCR 98-423

StatusPublished

This text of 999 S.W.2d 181 (Simpson 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

Simpson v. State, 999 S.W.2d 181, 338 Ark. 511, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 417 (Ark. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

For the second time, the State moves this court to direct appellant Sedric Maurice Simpson to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (h). We granted the State’s original motion on May 6, 1999. Simpson filed a brief on June 11, 1999, but the amended abstract still fails to comply with Rule 4-3 (h). Simpson has filed no response to the State’s second motion.

We deny the State’s motion and instead direct the State to file a supplemental abstract in compliance with Rule 4-3 (h) which is consistent with the State’s burden under the rule to make certain and certify that all objections and adverse rulings be abstracted and all points argued by Simpson that appear to involve prejudicial error are briefed. The State’s alternative request for a thirty-day extension is granted.

Upon receipt of the supplemental abstract, we will review and determine whether defense counsel’s name should be referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See McGehee v. State, 327 Ark. 88, 937 S.W.2d 632 (1992).

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

Per Curiam.

For the second time, the State moves this court to direct appellant Sedric Maurice Simpson to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (h). We granted the State’s original motion on May 6, 1999. Simpson filed a brief on June 11, 1999, but the amended abstract still fails to comply with Rule 4-3 (h). Simpson has filed no response to the State’s second motion.

We deny the State’s motion and instead direct the State to file a supplemental abstract in compliance with Rule 4-3 (h) which is consistent with the State’s burden under the rule to make certain and certify that all objections and adverse rulings be abstracted and all points argued by Simpson that appear to involve prejudicial error are briefed. The State’s alternative request for a thirty-day extension is granted.

Upon receipt of the supplemental abstract, we will review and determine whether defense counsel’s name should be referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See McGehee v. State, 327 Ark. 88, 937 S.W.2d 632 (1992).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

999 S.W.2d 181, 338 Ark. 511, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-state-ark-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack