BRYANT V: STATE
ARK] Cite as 362 Ark, 167 (20051 167 Blake BRYANT v STATE ofArkansas CR 05-405 207 S W3d 557 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opimon delivered April 28, 2005 APPEAL & ERROR — FAILURE TO TIMELY PERFECT APPEAL — LAW SUMMARIZED, — 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 beheves 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 APPEAL & ERROR — AFFIDAVIT ADMITTING FAULT NO LONGER REQUIRED — ATTORNEY SHOULD CANDIDLY ADMIT FAULT WHEN HE OR SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILURE TO PERFECT APPEAL, — While the supreme court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before it will consider the motion for rule on clerk, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for failure to perfect the appeal APPEAL & ERROR — MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK — GOOD CAUSE FOR GR ANTING An admission by an attorney for a criminal
BRYAN1 v STALE 168 Cite as 362 Ark 167 (2005) [362 defendant that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part is good cause to grant a motion for rule on the clerk. Motion for Rule on Clerk; granted Patnck] Benca, for appellant. No response ER CURIAM. Appellant Blake Bryant, by and through his pattorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk: His attorney, Patricki Benca, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part: [1, 2] This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeals in McDonald v: State, 356 Ark: 106, 146 SAX/3d 883 (2004). There we said that there are only two possible reasons for an appeal not being timely ptrfected: 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 parry 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 twooptions. 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., 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 CO perfect the appeal. See id. [3] In accordance with McDonald v. State, supra, Mr. Benca 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:
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.