Dokes v. State

Annotate this Case
Leonard DOKES v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-208                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 26, 1996


Appeal & error -- motion for rule on clerk treated as motion for
     belated appeal -- good cause for granting. -- Where appellant
     moved for a rule on the clerk, the supreme court treated the
     motion as one for a belated appeal and granted it because the
     failure of counsel to perfect an appeal in a criminal case
     where the defendant desires an appeal constitutes a denial of
     effective assistance of counsel and good cause for a belated
     appeal.


     Brockman, Norton & Taylor, by: C. Mac Norton, for appellant.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.February 26, 1996 *ADVREP6*


                                     CR96-208
                                     
LEONARD DOKES

               Appellant

          v. 

STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                     Motion for Belated 
               Appellee              Appeal Granted







                           Per Curiam.


     Leonard Dokes was convicted of driving while intoxicated.  He
attempted to lodge the record of trial with this Court, but the
Clerk refused the record because the notice of appeal was not filed
within the prescribed time.  Mr. Dokes, through his counsel C. Mac
Norton, has moved for a rule on the clerk.  In these circumstances
we treat the motion as one for a belated appeal.  Phillips v.
State, 320 Ark. 392, 896 S.W.2d 890 (1995).
     We grant the belated appeal because the failure of counsel to
perfect an appeal in a criminal case where the defendant desires an
appeal constitutes a denial of effective assistance of counsel and
good cause for a belated appeal.  Gay v. State, 288 Ark. 589, 707 S.W.2d 320 (1986).
     A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on
Professional Conduct.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.