From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Oct 1, 1998
975 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. 1998)

Opinion

CR 98-1135

Opinion delivered October 1, 1998

APPEAL ERROR — MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK — DENIED. — An admission by an attorney for a criminal defendant that the record was tendered late, without an admission of fault on his part, results in denial of a motion for rule on the clerk.

Motion for Rule on the Clerk; denied.

C. Richard Lippard, for appellant.

No response.


Eric Davis, by his attorney, C. Richard Lippard, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

The motion admits that the record was not timely filed and that it was no fault of the Appellant.

[1] This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on the clerk when the attorney admits that the record was not timely filed due to an error on his part. See, e.g., Tarry v. State, 288 Ark. 172, 702 S.W.2d 804 (1986). Here, the attorney does not admit fault on his part. We have held that a statement that it was someone else's fault or no one's fault will not suffice. See Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986). Therefore, Appellant's motion must be denied.

Appellant's attorney, C. Richard Lippard, shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the transcript, and upon filing same, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

The present motion for rule on the clerk is denied.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Oct 1, 1998
975 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. 1998)
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:Eric DAVIS v . STATE of Arkansas

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Oct 1, 1998

Citations

975 S.W.2d 97 (Ark. 1998)
975 S.W.2d 97

Citing Cases

Davis v. State

We denied the motion because appellant's attorney, C. Richard Lippard, did not admit fault in failing to…