Cite as 2009 Ark. 622 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 09-1259 JAMES EARL MONTGOMERY Opinion Delivered December 10, 2009 APPELLANT MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE MOTION GRANTED. PER CURIAM Appellant James Earl Montgomery, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney, Joseph D. Hughes, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part. This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeal 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 attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or, there is “good reason.” 356 Ark. 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.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 622 Id., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (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, supra, Mr. Hughes has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. Motion granted. Joseph D. Hughes, for appellant. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.