Williams v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Williams v. State

854 S.W.2d 370, 42 Ark. App. 184, 1993 Ark. App. LEXIS 386

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedJune 23, 1993

DocketCA CR 92-92

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 854 S.W.2d 370 (Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. State, 854 S.W.2d 370, 42 Ark. App. 184, 1993 Ark. App. LEXIS 386 (Ark. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In an opinion not designated for publication, we affirmed the appellant’s conviction. Williams v. State, CACR92-92 (op. del. October 7,1992). Our mandate was issued on October 27,1992. Approximately seven months later, on May 26,1993, the appellant’s attorney filed this motion for attorney’s fees. We deny the motion.

Noting that efficiency requires us to consider motions for attorney’s fees while the briefs are in our possession and the case is fresh in our minds, we denied a motion for attorney’s fees filed approximately eight months after our decision was rendered in Terrell v. State, 32 Ark. App. 58, 796 S. W.2d 348 (1990). In so doing, we repeated earlier warnings that failure to file motions for attorney’s fees in a timely manner could prevent an allowance of attorney’s fees. Moreover, Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 6-6(c) provides that all motions for attorney’s fees from attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases shall be filed no later than thirty days after the issuance of the mandate. Under the circumstances of this case, where no reason for the long delay in filing the motion is argued by the appellant’s attorney or appears in the record before us, the motion is untimely under our decision in Terrell, supra, as well as under Rule 6-6(c). Consequently, the motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

In an opinion not designated for publication, we affirmed the appellant’s conviction. Williams v. State, CACR92-92 (op. del. October 7,1992). Our mandate was issued on October 27,1992. Approximately seven months later, on May 26,1993, the appellant’s attorney filed this motion for attorney’s fees. We deny the motion.

Noting that efficiency requires us to consider motions for attorney’s fees while the briefs are in our possession and the case is fresh in our minds, we denied a motion for attorney’s fees filed approximately eight months after our decision was rendered in Terrell v. State, 32 Ark. App. 58, 796 S. W.2d 348 (1990). In so doing, we repeated earlier warnings that failure to file motions for attorney’s fees in a timely manner could prevent an allowance of attorney’s fees. Moreover, Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 6-6(c) provides that all motions for attorney’s fees from attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases shall be filed no later than thirty days after the issuance of the mandate. Under the circumstances of this case, where no reason for the long delay in filing the motion is argued by the appellant’s attorney or appears in the record before us, the motion is untimely under our decision in Terrell, supra, as well as under Rule 6-6(c). Consequently, the motion for attorney’s fees is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 S.W.2d 370, 42 Ark. App. 184, 1993 Ark. App. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-arkctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack