David Woody v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 07-894
DAVID WOODY,
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT,
September 13, 2007
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
REMANDED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant David Woody, by and through his attorney, Coy J. Rush, Jr., has filed a
motion for rule on clerk. The record reflects that appellant timely filed his notice of appeal
on March 28, 2007, making his record on appeal due on or before June 26, 2007. On May
25, 2007, the circuit court entered an order extending the time for filing the transcript one
hundred twenty days from the date of the order. Appellant states that when he attempted to
tender the record to this court’s clerk on August 22, 2007, the clerk refused to docket the
record because the order of extension did not comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App.
P.–Civ. 5(b). Appellant subsequently filed the present motion.
Rule 5(b)(1), provides:
(b) Extension of time.
(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;
(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.
Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5(b)(1) (2007). 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, e.g., Russell v. State, 368 Ark. 439, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007)
(per curiam); Davis v. State, 368 Ark. 380, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam); Munn v. State,
368 Ark. 34, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam). The order of extension in this case makes
no reference to each of the findings of the circuit court required by the rule. Accordingly,
we remand the matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b).
Remanded.
-2-
CR 07-894
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.
