Wooten v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Wooten v. State

958 S.W.2d 537, 331 Ark. 444, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 90

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wooten v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 338 Ark. 691 →

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 12, 1998·No. CR 98-73·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Jimmy Don Wooten by his attorney, James O. Clawson, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. The motion reflects that Appellant requested a hearing in the trial court on his Rule 37 petition, and that such request was denied. Clawson admits by motion that the notice of appeal was not timely filed due to a mistake on his part.

Because Clawson has assumed responsibility for the error, we treat the motion for rule on the clerk as a motion for belated appeal, and we grant it. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). 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 Jimmy Don Wooten by his attorney, James O. Clawson, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. The motion reflects that Appellant requested a hearing in the trial court on his Rule 37 petition, and that such request was denied. Clawson admits by motion that the notice of appeal was not timely filed due to a mistake on his part.

Because Clawson has assumed responsibility for the error, we treat the motion for rule on the clerk as a motion for belated appeal, and we grant it. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Wooten v. State, 958 S.W.2d 537, 331 Ark. 444, 1998 Ark. LEXIS 90 (Ark. 1998).

Pincite

958 S.W.2d 537 (Wooten v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.