Marcus Lance Rackley v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Marcus Lance RACKLEY v. STATE of Arkansas
CR05-385
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered April 27, 2006
M OTION FOR RULE ON THE CLERK – REMANDED.– Where the circuit judge found that
appellant had shown good cause for granting an extension of time within which to file the
record but there was nothing in the record to indicate that “[a]ll parties have had the
opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing,” as
required by Ark. R. App. R.–Civ. 5(b)(1)(C); accordingly, the matter was remanded to the
circuit judge for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1)(C).
Motion for Rule on Clerk, remanded.
Horner & Marshall, by: Max M. Horner, Jr., for appellant.
P ER C URIAM. Appellant Marcus Lance Rackley filed a motion for rule on the clerk
to file his record and have his appeal docketed. The clerk refused to docket the appeal based
on a failure to comply with Ark. R. App. P.-- 5(b). Rule 5(b) concerns the extension of time
within which to file the record and provides:
(1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion
in the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of
the period prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order,
may extend the time for filing the record only if it makes the following
findings:
(A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested
extension and served the motion on all counsel of record;
RACKLEY v. STATE
Cite as 366 Ark. ___ (2006)
Page 2
(B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired;
(C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a
hearing or by responding in writing;
(D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the
stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any
financial arrangements required for its preparation; and
(E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the
stenographically reported material in the record on appeal.
See Petras v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sep. 29, 2005); Camp v. State, ___ Ark.
___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 21, 2005).
The circuit judge found that appellant had shown good cause for granting an extension
of time, and he extended the deadline to December 15, 2005; however, there is nothing in the
order to indicate that “[a]ll parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either
at a hearing or by responding in writing,” as required by Ark. R. App. P.--Civ. 5(b)(1)(C).
This court has made it very clear that we expect strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 5(b), and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere
formality. See Petras, supra. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit judge for
compliance with Rule 5(b)(1)(C).
Remanded.
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.
