Watson v. State

233 S.W.3d 156, 366 Ark. 45
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 23, 2006
DocketCR 06-219
StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 156 (Watson 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
Watson v. State, 233 S.W.3d 156, 366 Ark. 45 (Ark. 2006).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Ruby T. Watson, by and through her attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. Her attorney, Ronald L. Davis, Jr., states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is “good reason.” 356 Ark. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained

Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in dechning to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide whether good reason is present.

Id., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id.

In accordance with McDonald v. State, supra, Mr. Davis has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Motion granted.

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

Related

McDonald v. State
146 S.W.3d 883 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
233 S.W.3d 156, 366 Ark. 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-ark-2006.