HAMILTON V. JONES Aiuc] Cite as 352 Ark. 519 (2003) 519 Richard L. HAMILTON v. Teddy D. JONES, et al.
02-749 102 S.W.3d 479 Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered April 10, 2003 CERTIOIkARI, WRIT OF - WRIT ISSUED. - Where a contempt citation directed to the court reporter for failure to prepare the record on or before the appropriate time had been issued in January, but as of the date of this opinion the record had still not been completed, the supreme court issued a writ of certiorari directing the court reporter to complete the record, which was returnable within thirty days. Writ of certiorari issued. S. Butler Bernard, Jr, for appellant. No response. ER CURIAM. Richard L. Hamilton, through his attorney p S. Bernard Butler, filed a motion for a writ of certi-orari, requesting that we direct court reporter, Iris Brooks, to complete the remaining portion of the transcript to be included in the record. On December 19, 2002, we issued a per curiam opinion ordering Ms. Brooks to appear before this court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for failing to prepare the record on or before the appropriate time. See Hamil-ton v. Jones, 351 Ark. 382, 93 S.W.3d 694 (2002). The hearing
520 [352 was held on January 16, 2003, and Ms. Brooks testified as to the mitigating circumstances. On January 23, 2003, we issued a per curiam order regarding a contempt citation directed to Iris Brooks in which we entered the contempt citation with a reduced fine of $100.00. See Hamilton v. Jones, 351 Ark. 561, 95 S.W.3d 809 (2003). We take this opportunity to correct an error in this previous per curiam,opinion. In the January 23, 2003 order, we stated that "On January 9, 2003 the record was tendered to our clerk." Id. That is incorrect. In fact, only a partial record, one volume of four, was tendered to our clerk on December 9, 2002. As of this date, the record has not been completed. [1] Accordingly, we issue this writ of certiorari directing Iris Brooks to complete the record, which is returnable within thirty days.
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.