Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

SMITH v. STATE 528 Cite as 326 Ark. 528 (1996) [326 Allen SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas CR 96-662 931 S.W2d 441 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered November 4, 1996 CONTEMPT BELATEDBRIEF MOTION GRANTED STATEMENTS IN MITI GATION CONSIDERED NO FURTHER ACTION NECESSARY. Where, at a show-cause hearing, counsel for appellant appeared and stated that he had tendered the criminal-appeal brief several days before the hearing; where counsel also admitted that the facts as stated in an earlier per curiam opinion were correct but denied that his actions were willful; and where counsel offered extenuating circumstances that, for the most part, concerned the illness of his father and law partner and his resulting absence from the firm, the supreme court considered counsel's statements in mitigation of his failure to file a timely brief and directed that no further action was necessary. Motion to File Belated Brief granted; Contempt Order issued. Louis Etoch, for appellant. No response. PER CLJIUA1vI. This is an aggravated-assault case in which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to twelve years in prison.
ARK. 1 529 Counsel for appellant, Louis Etoch, was ordered to appear on October 14, 1996, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to timely file the brief in this cause. See per curiam opinion delivered on October 7, 1996. At the show-cause hearing, Mr. Etoch appeared and stated that he had tendered the brief on behalf of the appellant on October 9, 1996. [1] At the hearing, Mr. Etoch also admitted that the facts as stated in the per curiam of October 7, 1996, were correct, but denied that his actions were willful, and offered extenuating circumstances which, for the most part, concerned the illness of his father and law partner, Mike Etoch, and his resulting absence from the firm. After hearing and considering counsel's statements and other matters before the court, we consider Mr. Etoch's statements, in mitigation of his failure to file a timely brief, and direct no further action is necessary.
 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.