Waddle v. State

936 S.W.2d 554, 327 Ark. 204, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 48
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedFebruary 3, 1997
DocketCR 97-71
StatusPublished

This text of 936 S.W.2d 554 (Waddle 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
Waddle v. State, 936 S.W.2d 554, 327 Ark. 204, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 48 (Ark. 1997).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellants, Timothy L. Waddle and Irene L. Waddle, have filed a motion for rule on the clerk. Their attorney, C. Richard Lippard, admits that the notice of appeal was untimely filed due to a mistake on his part.

We treat appellants’ request for rule on the clerk as a motion for a belated appeal. See, e.g., Hicks v. State, 325 Ark. 192, 923 S.W.2d 872 (1996). We find that the error of failing to timely file a notice of appeal, admittedly made by counsel for criminal defendants, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

We grant the motion for belated appeal. 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

Related

Hicks v. State
923 S.W.2d 872 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
936 S.W.2d 554, 327 Ark. 204, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waddle-v-state-ark-1997.