Slack v. State

3 S.W.3d 291, 339 Ark. 65, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 529
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Slack v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 338 Ark. 643
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 21, 1999·No. CR 99-809·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant James Slack filed a motion for IAM. appeal. We previously denied the motion because Appellant’s attorney, Kenneth G. Fuchs, did not admit fault in failing to file a timely notice of appeal. See Slack v. State, 338 Ark. 643, 999 S.W.2d 668 (1999)(per curiam). We indicated, however, that we would grant the motion if Appellant’s attorney filed an affidavit accepting full responsibility for failing to file a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s attorney has assumed full responsibility for the error in an affidavit filed October 8, 1999.

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See Johnson v. State, 332 Ark. 78, 959 S.W.2d 54 (1998) (per curiam); Harkness v. State, 264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978). A copy of this per curiam opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

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

Slack v. State, 3 S.W.3d 291, 339 Ark. 65, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 529 (Ark. 1999).

3 S.W.3d 291 (Slack v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harkness v. State
572 S.W.2d 835 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1978)
Johnson v. State
959 S.W.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1998)
Slack v. State
999 S.W.2d 668 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1999)