Stout v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Stout v. State

887 S.W.2d 309, 318 Ark. 887, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 674

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stout v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 320 Ark. 552 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided December 5, 1994·No. CR 94-1276·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mark Thomas Stout, by his attorney, A. Wayne Davis, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, A. Wayne Davis, admits by motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). The motion is, therefore, granted.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

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

Per Curiam.

Mark Thomas Stout, by his attorney, A. Wayne Davis, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, A. Wayne Davis, admits by motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). The motion is, therefore, granted.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Stout v. State, 887 S.W.2d 309, 318 Ark. 887, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 674 (Ark. 1994).

Pincite

887 S.W.2d 309 (Stout v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.