252 [ 341 Dianna SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas CR 00-458 15 S.W3d 344 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 4, 2000 APPEAL & ERROR - MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK - GOOD CAUSE FOR GRANTING. - An admission of responsibility for negligently miscalculating the time to file a record on appeal by the attorney for a criminal defendant is good cause to grant a motion for rule on the clerk. Motion for Rule on Clerk; granted. G.B. "Bing" Colvin, III, for appellant. No response. ER CURIAM. Appellant Dianna Smith, by and through her P attorney, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. The record reflects that the judgment and commitment order was filed on September 10, 1999, and a notice of appeal was filed on Octo-ber 7. An amended order was filed on October 19, followed by an amended notice of appeal filed on October 28. An order extending the time to lodge the record on appeal was entered on January 13, 2000, more than ninety days after the first notice of appeal was filed. The transcript was not tendered until April 7. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 5(a), the record on appeal must be tendered within ninety days from the filing of the first notice of appeal. Rule 5(b) provides that the trial court may order an extension of time to file the record, but the order must be entered before the expiration of the ninety-day period provided in subsection (a). Thus, the order for extension in this case was untimely. [1] Appellant's attorney, G.B. "Bing" Colvin III, admits responsibility for negligently miscalculating the time to file the record on appeal. We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. Jones v. State, 338 Ark. 29, 992 S.W2d 85 (1999) (per
ARK. 253 curiam) (citing Tarry v. State, 288 Ark. 172, 702 S.W2d 804 (1986) (per curiam)). The motion for rule on the clerk is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).
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.