Court Opinion

ID: 9825856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:11:04.682023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:25.573485
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam. On Rehearing. Each side has filed a petition for rehearing. The State admits that the verdicts, as they appeared in the transcript—and as detailed in the opinion—showed the sentence for burglary to be sixteen years, and that for grand larceny to be five. But the State says the transcript was inaccurate, and contends that the verdicts, as actually returned, showed sentences to be sixteen years for grand larceny and five for burglary. Be that as it may, the purpose of a petition for rehearing is to call attention to errors alleged to have been made in the opinion that was handed down—this as distinguished from record errors. Transcript errors should be discovered before submission. In Smith v. State, 205 Ark. 1075, 173 S. W. 2d 248, the transcript failed to show an instruction subsequently claimed to have been given. After the case had been decided we refused to add to the record a stipulation that the instruction had been given. The Court has power, on rehearing, to permit the transcript to be corrected nunc pro tunc; but we do not believe that this discretion should be exercised in the present case. So, the State’s petition for rehearing is overruled. The appellant’s petition has been carefully studied and is also overruled.