¶1concurring. I concur, but base my agreement on the sustaining of the motion for a new trial on a different basis from that of the majority opinion. The trial court properly held that the motion for new trial should be denied because it was not timely filed. This was jurisdictional. I agree with the trial court, as evidenced by my dissenting opinion to the granting of appellant’s motion to be permitted to file the motion for new trial. See Zachry v. State, 259 Ark. 42B. This jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by this court’s “reinvesting jurisdiction.”
260 Ark. 97
Zachry v. State
Decided July 6, 1976
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1976-07-06
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1983
10 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1976-07-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →