Case ID: ark_347/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "P ER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lee Charles LEWIS v. STATE of Arkansas
    CR 01-1327
    64 S.W.3d 753
    Supreme Court of Arkansas
    Opinion delivered January 17, 2002
    
      John F. Gibson, Jr., for appellant.
    No response.
   P ER CURIAM.

Lee Charles Lewis, by his attorney, 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’s counsel but rather was due to unforeseen casualty.

This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on 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. Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986). Therefore, appellant’s motion must be denied.

If the appellant’s attorney 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, 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.