SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-783
Opinion Delivered October 2, 2014
KAMRAN TYSHUN JACKSON
APPELLANT MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS
V. COUNSEL
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
MOTIONS GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Kamran Tyshun Jackson, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for
rule on clerk and a motion to be relieved as counsel. Appellant’s attorney, John R. Irwin,
who is a full-time, state-salaried public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary, stated
in his motion for rule on clerk that our clerk refused to file the untimely record because of
his failure to follow Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal (2014).
This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated
appeals in McDonald v. State,
(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.”
.
We explained as follows:
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
Cite as
the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining 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. at 116,
(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.
Here,
in accordance with McDonald, Mr. Irwin has candidly admitted fault. Therefore, the motion
for rule on clerk is granted, and a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee
on Professional Conduct.
Further, Mr. Irwin has filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. In Rushing v. State,
(2000), we held that full-time, state-salaried public defenders are
ineligible for compensation for their work on appeal. Since Rushing, the General Assembly
passed Arkansas Code Annotated section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2007), which states as
follows:
A person employed as a full-time public defender who is not provided
a state-funded secretary may also seek compensation for appellate work from
the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals.
Because Mr. Irwin is not eligible for compensation on appeal, his motion to be relieved as
counsel is granted. Sanders v. State,
(2007). Attorney Toney
Brasuell is appointed to represent Appellant on appeal. Once the record on appeal has been
lodged, our clerk will set a new briefing schedule for the appeal.
Motion for rule on clerk and motion to be relieved as counsel are granted.
John R. Irwin, for appellant.
No response.
2
