Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

328 Ark. 534

Mixon v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 12, 1997

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1997-05-12

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1998

6 state decisions

Relies on Harkness v. State · Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance Co. v. Bridewell · Profit v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-05-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The appellant, Clarence Mixon, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney, John F. Stroud III, states that the notice of appeal was filed prior to the entry of the judgment and commitment order. Thus, under rules, the notice of appeal was of no effect. See Profit v. State, 326 Ark. 825, 933 S.W.2d 392 (1996). However, because counsel does not admit fault for filing the notice of appeal prematurely, we deny the motion.

¶2 If the attorney will concede by affidavit that it was his fault that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed, or if other good cause is shown, then the motion will be granted. Harkness v. State, 264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978). The attorney is given 30 days from issuance of this per curiam order to respond. If no response is received within that time, the motion will be treated as a request for a belated appeal and granted, and a copy of the order granting the motion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

¶3Motion denied.

/328/ark/534 · .json · Public domain