Court Opinion

ID: 9678827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:33:28.528049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.277160
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I must confess to having some sympathy for the attorney, Val Price, in this case. Effective July 1, 2006, this court amended Supreme Court Rule 6-9 to shorten the time frame for filing a notice of appeal from thirty days, which is the standard time frame for filing the notice, to fourteen days. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(b)(2). The obvious intent of this court was to expedite these appeals involving termination-of-parental-rights cases. At the same time we shortened the time frame for filing a notice of appeal, we added a non-standard requirement for filing notices of appeal in these cases. We required, effective that same date, that the notice of appeal be signed by the terminated parent or parents, in addition to the signature of counsel. Sup. Ct. R. 6-9(b)(2)(D) (2007). The end result is that requirements for perfecting notices of appeal in these cases are more onerous while the deadline for filing the notices has been shortened to fourteen days. The two rule changes appear to be working at cross purposes. Mr. Price raises the practical problem of obtaining client signatures within fourteen days when the client is in prison or out of state. Mr. Price also states in his motion that in February 2007, he filed a record with the clerk of this court containing a notice of appeal that his client had not signed, and that record was not rejected. Thus, he maintains he was not put on notice of the new rule by the clerk’s office. The new Rule 6-9, however, has now been in effect for nine and one-half months, and Mr. Price should have been aware of it. For that reason, I concur that the motion for belated appeal be granted. With respect to sending Mr. Price to the Professional Conduct Committee for noncompliance with the new rule, this court has done so in the past with other attorneys. See, e.g., Werts v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 368 Ark. 386, 246 S.W.3d 438 (2007) (failed to file a brief on time); Latiolais v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 368 Ark. 381, 246 S.W.3d 413 (2006) (failed to file a brief on time). But see Flannery v. Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services, 368 Ark. 31, 242 S.W.3d 619 (2006) (counsel did not advise a terminated parent of his right to appeal; attorney was found to be at fault; court allowed the belated appeal; court did not send counsel to the Professional Conduct Committee). It is difficult at this juncture to gauge the impact of this new supreme court rule. Though the goals of a shortened time frame for appeals and parental signatures are good ones, the reality of these new requirements, especially the signature requirement, may actually be an impediment to expedited appeals, should extensions of time for filing the notice of appeal be required. The situation bears watching.