Sey v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 11–776.,CR 11–776. |
| Citation | 2012 Ark. 2 |
| Parties | Meloni SEY, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appellant Meloni Sey, by and through her counsel, Courtney Cline, moves this court to file a belated brief. After a final extension of time in which to file her brief was granted by this court, Sey's brief was due on November 7, 2011. On November 1, 2011, Sey tendered a non-complying brief that our clerk rejected. On November 4, 2011, Sey filed a motion to supplement the record, which this court denied on December 1, 2011.
On December 5, 2011, Sey tendered a corrected brief, and she now asks this court to accept this belated brief. Counsel states in the motion that it was her mistaken belief and misunderstanding that the time for filing the corrected brief was stayed pending her motion to supplement the record.
We will accept a criminal appellant's belated brief to prevent an appeal from being aborted. Pennington v. State, 2011 Ark. 363 (per curiam). However, good cause must be shown to grant the motion. Id.; see also Strom v. State, 356 Ark. 224, 147 S.W.3d 689 (2004) . Young v. State, 372 Ark. 219, 272 S.W.3d 109 (2008) (per curiam). Accordingly, we grant the instant motion and refer the matter to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
Motion granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Strain v. State, CR 10–888.
- Springs v. State
-
Troeskyn v. Herrington (In re S.H.)
... ... On July 13, 2011, the circuit court entered an order denying the petition to terminate the guardianship, finding that as applied in this case, Ark.Code Ann. 2865401(b)(3) was not an unconstitutional violation of due process under either the federal or state constitution; that Tamera carried the burden of proof in the termination proceeding; that the guardianship of S.H. was still necessary; and that termination of the guardianship would not be in her best interest at this time. The court ordered that Tamera's visitation with S.H. be expanded as much ... ...
-
Yanmar Co. v. Slater
... ... Specifically, Yanmar Japan argues that there was no substantial evidence to support the conclusion that it had the requisite contacts with the State of Arkansas to subject it to suit here. According to Yanmar Japan, the judgment against it should be reversed and the case dismissed. Mrs. Slater counters that the evidence demonstrates that Yanmar Japan had continuous and systematic contacts with Arkansas that satisfied the finding of personal ... ...