Title: Hall v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Cite as 2010 Ark. 101 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR10-91 RODNEY RAY HALL, APPELLANT, VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE, Opinion Delivered February 25, 2010 MOTIONS FOR RULE ON CLERK MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK GRANTED; PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK MOOT; MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL DENIED. PER CURIAM Appellant Rodney Ray Hall, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney, Ray Spruell, stated in his motion that our clerk refused to accept the untimely tender of the record. Mr. Hall also filed a pro se motion for rule on clerk. Attorney C. Scott Nance, who according to his motion is now counsel, tendered a motion for rule on clerk. This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or Cite as 2010 Ark. 101 attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is “good reason.” Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained: 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 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. (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. In accordance with McDonald v. State, supra, Mr. Spruell has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted. Mr. Hall is represented by counsel and is not entitled to pursue his own motion for relief. He must rely on his counsel to represent him. See Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991) (per curiam). Mr. Spruell has also filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. Mr. Nance, however, has not filed a motion for substitution. Mr. Spruell’s motion to be relieved as counsel is denied. Mr. Spruell’s motion for rule on clerk is granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. -2-