ARK.] 103 Albert BETTS v. STATE of Arkansas CR 93-932 874 S.W.2d 375 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 16, 1994 APPEAL & ERROR - AMENDED BRIEF UNTIMELY TENDERED - BRIEF FILED - OPINION SENT TO COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. — Where appellant's abstract did not conform to the rules; the court granted the State's motion to compel and set April 9, 1994, a Sat-urday, as the due date for an amended abstract; and notice was mailed to the attorney on February 28, 1994; but the amended brief was not received on April 11, the first working day after April 9, appellant's motion to file belated brief was granted to prevent counsel's error from preventing appellant's appeal in a serious criminal case; however, a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct. Motion to File Belated Brief granted. McCullough Law Firm, by: Rita E Bailey, for appellant. Winston Bryant, Ate y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. Albert Betts was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a timely notice of appeal and lodged the transcript. He filed a brief containing an abstract which was not in compliance with our rules. We granted the State's motion to compel compliance with the rules and set April 9, 1994, a Saturday, as the due date for an amended abstract. Our letter informing counsel of the due date was mailed February 28, 1994. The brief containing the revised abstract was not received until April 13, 1994. Mr. Betts's counsel, Rita F. Bailey, has filed this motion attempting to place the blame on a delay in the mail, contending that because she mailed the corrected document to the Clerk on April 8, it should have been received on April 11, the first working day after April 9. [1] We must grant the motion to file a belated brief, else Mr. Betts would be denied his right of appeal in this serious crim-
104 [317 inal case due to his counsel's failure to file the brief with the corrected abstract on time. See Hallman v. State, 287 Ark. 383, 698 S.W.2d 803 (1985). Despite having been given well over a month to prepare the corrected abstract, counsel failed to get it to us on time. Given these circumstances, we forward a copy of this opinion to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.
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.