Hilstrom v. State

Keith Cox HILSTROM v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-563                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 3, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- motion for rule on clerk denied -- attorney
     did not admit fault. -- The supreme court denied appellant's
     motion for rule on the clerk where the attorney did not admit
     fault on his part but instead implied that the court reporter
     who prepared the transcript provided him with misinformation;
     a statement that the fault was someone else's or no one's will
     not suffice.

2.   Appeal & error -- motion for rule on clerk -- when granted. --
     The supreme court directed appellant's attorney to file within
     thirty days a motion and an affidavit accepting full
     responsibility for not timely filing the transcript; upon the
     filing, the motion would be granted.


     Motion for Rule on the Clerk; denied.
     James O. Cox, for appellant.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.*ADVREP*SC6*






KEITH COX HILSTROM,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE.


CR96-563

Opinion Delivered:  6-3-96

MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK





MOTION DENIED





                           PER CURIAM

     Appellant, Keith Cox Hilstrom, was convicted on October 9,
1995, of theft of leased personal property and theft by deception. 
His notice of appeal was filed on November 6, 1995.  The deadline
for filing the record was May 6, 1996.  The record was tendered to
the clerk's office after the time for filing had lapsed.  
     The appellant, by his attorney, James O. Cox, has filed a
motion for rule on the clerk to compel the clerk's office to accept
the record.  In his motion, appellant's attorney states that he
relied upon misinformation given his office staff with regard to
the filing date.  
     This court has held that we will grant a motion for rule on
the clerk when the attorney admits that the record was not timely
filed due to an error on his part.  See e.g., Tarry v. State, 288
Ark. 172, 702 S.W.2d 804 (1986).  Here, the attorney does not admit
fault on his part but instead implies the court reporter who
prepared the transcript provided him with misinformation.  We have
held that a statement that it was someone else's fault or no one's
fault will not suffice.  Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986).  Therefore, appellant's motion must be denied.  
     The appellant's attorney shall file within thirty days from
the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case
accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the transcript,
and upon filing same, the motion will be granted and a copy of the
opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.