State v. Thurman

Supreme Court of Arkansas

State v. Thurman

808 S.W.2d 762, 305 Ark. 448, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 475

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 13, 1991

DocketCR 91-93

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 808 S.W.2d 762 (State v. Thurman) 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

State v. Thurman, 808 S.W.2d 762, 305 Ark. 448, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 475 (Ark. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The jury found the appellees guilty of a misdemeanor. They moved for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts. The State objected and, among other things, contended that such judgments are not authorized by the Rules, of Criminal Procedure. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.22. The trial court granted the judgments notwithstanding the verdicts. The State attempts to appeal the decision for the future guidance of trial courts. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10. We dismiss the appeal because the transcript was not filed within the sixty (60) day period as required by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10(c), and we do not have jurisdiction.

On June 4, 1990, the trial court entered the judgments of acquittal notwithstanding the verdicts of the jury. On July 2, 1990, the State timely filed its notice of appeal. However, the transcript was not filed until September 5,1990, which was more than sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal. The filing of the transcript within the sixty (60) day period as required by Rule 36.10(c) is jurisdictional. State v. Bland, 260 Ark. 511, 542 S.W.2d 497 (1976). Since we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.

Newbern, J., not participating. 809 S.W.2d 821 JUNE 17, 1991 Winston Bryant, Att’y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, for appellant. Cross, Kearney & McKissic, by: Gene E. McKissic, for appellee.

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

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The jury found the appellees guilty of a misdemeanor. They moved for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts. The State objected and, among other things, contended that such judgments are not authorized by the Rules, of Criminal Procedure. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.22. The trial court granted the judgments notwithstanding the verdicts. The State attempts to appeal the decision for the future guidance of trial courts. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10. We dismiss the appeal because the transcript was not filed within the sixty (60) day period as required by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 36.10(c), and we do not have jurisdiction.

On June 4, 1990, the trial court entered the judgments of acquittal notwithstanding the verdicts of the jury. On July 2, 1990, the State timely filed its notice of appeal. However, the transcript was not filed until September 5,1990, which was more than sixty (60) days after the filing of the notice of appeal. The filing of the transcript within the sixty (60) day period as required by Rule 36.10(c) is jurisdictional. State v. Bland, 260 Ark. 511, 542 S.W.2d 497 (1976). Since we are without jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.

Newbern, J., not participating. 809 S.W.2d 821 JUNE 17, 1991 Winston Bryant, Att’y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, for appellant. Cross, Kearney & McKissic, by: Gene E. McKissic, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

808 S.W.2d 762, 305 Ark. 448, 1991 Ark. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thurman-ark-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack