DONIHOO V. STATE 340 Cite as 333 Ark. 340 (1998) [333 Larry DONIHOO v. STATE of Arkansas CR 97-766 968 S.W.2d 626 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 21, 1998 CONTEMPT — MOTIONS SETTING ASIDE DISMISSAL GRANTED — SHOW — CAUSE ORDER ISSUED. — Where counsel, in his motion to set aside the order dismissing the appeal, conceded his responsibility to file a timely brief and stated that he had failed to do so, and where appellant filed a pro se motion to reinstate his appeal, both motions were granted; the supreme court ordered counsel to appear and show cause why he delayed nearly nine months in filing the brief, causing dismissal of the appeal.
DONIHOO V. STATE ARK.] Cite as 333 Ark. 340 (1998) 341 Order Setting Aside Dismissal Order, Reinstating Appeal, and Issuing Show-Cause Order. Charles A. Potter, for appellant. Appellant, pro se. No response. PER CURIAM. Appellant Larry Donihoo's petition for Rule 37 relief was denied on March 11, 1997, and he filed a notice of appeal from that denial on March 31, 1997. Donihoo's counsel, Charles A. Potter, sent a transcript of the case which was received by this court's clerk on July 9, 1997, but counsel failed to file his brief which was due on August 18, 1997. As a consequence, the State filed its motion to dismiss on March 23, 1998, which we granted on April 16, 1998. On April 24, 1998, Donihoo's counsel, Mr. Potter, moved to set aside our order dismissing the appeal, and in doing so, he conceded it was his responsibility to file a timely brief, but he failed to do so, which caused the dismissal. On May 13, 1998, Donihoo filed a pro se motion asking us to reinstate his appeal. [1] We grant Donihoo's and his counsel's motions, but because Mr. Potter without explanation has delayed nearly nine months in filing a brief, causing dismissal of Donihoo's appeal, we order Mr. Potter to appear before this court on the 4th day of June, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. CORBIN, J., not participating.
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.