BRANNINC: I! STATE ARK ] Cite as 363 Ark 364 (2005) 369 Christopher BRANNING v STATE of Arkansas CR 05 -989 214 S W3d 237 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 29, 2005 1 APPEAL & ERROR — BELATED APPEALS — 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 attorne y filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options; first, where the part y 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 part y 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 the supreme court will decide whether good reason is present APPEAL & ERROR — FAILURE TO PERFECT APPEAL — ATTORNEY IIflhJi fl ADMIT FAI T — While the supreme court no longer
BRANNING V SIAIE 370 Cite as 363 Ark 369 (2005) [363 requires an affidavit admitting fault before it will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for failure to perfect the appeal 3 APPEAL & ERROR — ERROR ON COUNSEL S PART CLEAR — MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK GRANTED — It was plain from appellant's motion that there was error on his counsel's part, counsel appeared to place blame on the courier, but the supreme court has specifically held that It is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal, the motion for rule on clerk was granted Motion for Rule on Clerk granted, Pro Se Motion for Order of Transcript moot Erwin R. Davis, for appellant: No response pER CURIAM Appellant Christopher Bran m n g, by and through his attorney, Erwin L. Davis, has filed a motion for rule on clerk The due date for lodging the transcript, as extended, was August 31, 2005 In the motion, Mr Davis states that appellant's transcnpt was "properly delivered on said day but apparently amved about one hour late, [and] the inability of the courier to arrive on time was due to excusably [sic] neglect or unavoidable delay[]" The docket sheer reveals that the record was tendered on September 1, 2005 [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 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 P; no advantage in
ARK1 371 declining to admit fault where fault exasts: 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 to perfect the appeal See td_ [3] It is plain from appellant's motion that there was error on Mr: Davis's part: Mr: Davis appears to place blame on the courier, but this court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal See Sullivan v State, 301 Ark: 352, 784 S:W:2d 155 (1990). The motion is granted A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. Motion granted: This per curiam order renders appellant's pro se motion moot:
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.