Taylor v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Taylor v. State

74 S.W.3d 205, 348 Ark. 457, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 259

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 2, 2002

DocketCR 02-375

StatusPublished

This text of 74 S.W.3d 205 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. State, 74 S.W.3d 205, 348 Ark. 457, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 259 (Ark. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Eddie A. Taylor, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney, Bart Ziegenhorn, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an 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.

Appellant Eddie A. Taylor, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney, Bart Ziegenhorn, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.W.3d 205, 348 Ark. 457, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-ark-2002.