Singleton v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Singleton v. State

2009 Ark. 155, 299 S.W.3d 265, 2009 Ark. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 19, 2009

DocketCR 09-176

StatusPublished

This text of 2009 Ark. 155 (Singleton 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

Singleton v. State, 2009 Ark. 155, 299 S.W.3d 265, 2009 Ark. LEXIS 123 (Ark. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

_jjAppellant, Brad Singleton, by and through his attorney, Kathy L. Hall, has filed the instant motion for rule on clerk. Singleton pleaded guilty to one count each of theft by receiving and fleeing. A judgment and commitment order was entered on October 21, 2008. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2008, making the record due in this court by February 10, 2009. Appellant tendered the record here on February 28, 2009, and it was rejected as untimely. Now, in seeking this court’s leave to file the record, Ms. Hall accepts full responsibility for miscalculating the deadline for filing the record.

This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There, we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is “good reason.” Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained:

Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault |2should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide whether good reason is present.

Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See McDonald, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883.

In accordance with McDonald, Ms. Hall has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted, and a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Motion for rule on clerk granted.

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

PER CURIAM.

_jjAppellant, Brad Singleton, by and through his attorney, Kathy L. Hall, has filed the instant motion for rule on clerk. Singleton pleaded guilty to one count each of theft by receiving and fleeing. A judgment and commitment order was entered on October 21, 2008. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2008, making the record due in this court by February 10, 2009. Appellant tendered the record here on February 28, 2009, and it was rejected as untimely. Now, in seeking this court’s leave to file the record, Ms. Hall accepts full responsibility for miscalculating the deadline for filing the record.

This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There, we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is “good reason.” Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained:

Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault |2should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide whether good reason is present.

Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See McDonald, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883.

In accordance with McDonald, Ms. Hall has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted, and a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Motion for rule on clerk granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ark. 155, 299 S.W.3d 265, 2009 Ark. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-state-ark-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack