Case Title: Barnett v. City of Dardanelle

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
Mark BARNETT v. CITY OF DARDANELLE

CR 96-538                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 20, 1996


Appeal & error -- motion for rule on clerk -- good cause for 
     granting. -- An admission by the attorney for a criminal
     defendant that the failure to file the record in time was due
     to a mistake on his part is good cause to grant a motion for
     rule on the clerk.


     Motion for Rule on the Clerk; granted.
     Dale W. Finley, for appellant.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.Per Curiam
May 20, 1996   *ADVREP*SC5*






MARK BARNETT,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

CITY OF DARDANELLE,
                     APPELLEE,

CR 96-538




MOTION FOR RULE ON THE CLERK






GRANTED.







     Appellant Mark Barnett, by his attorney, Dale W. Finley, has
filed for a rule on the clerk.  Barnett was found guilty in Yell
County Municipal Court, Dardanelle Division, of speeding, minor in
possession of alcohol, and driving while intoxicated -- first
offense.  He appealed these convictions to the Yell County Circuit
Court.  On January 10, 1996, the circuit court dismissed the appeal
and remanded the matter to the Dardanelle Municipal Court for
disposition.
     On January 30, 1996, Barnett timely filed his notice of appeal
to this court from the circuit court's January 10, 1996 order
dismissing his appeal.  The ninety-day period for filing the record
expired on April 30, 1996.  However, the record was not filed by
that date but rather was tendered on May 6, 1996.  Barnett's
attorney admits that the failure to file the record in time was due
to a mistake on his part. 
     We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney
for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion.  See
our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In re: Belated
Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964; see also Martin v. City of
Searcy, 322 Ark. 562, 909 S.W.2d 652 (1995).  A copy of this
opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
     Dudley, J., not participating.