Green v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR09-155
Opinion Delivered
ROBERT GREEN, JR.,
APPELLANT,
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Robert Green, Jr., by and through his attorney, Gary W. Potts, has filed a
motion for rule on clerk.
Green was convicted by a Desha County jury of delivery of cocaine. The judgment
and commitment order was entered on July 3, 2008, reflecting a sentence of 610 months in
the Arkansas Department of Correction. On July 14, 2008, the circuit court entered an
amended judgment and commitment order that set out a sentence of 600 months. Green
filed his notice of appeal on August 4, 2008. On August 22, 2008, Green obtained an order
extending the time to lodge the record with this court. The order stated that the time was
extended “for seven months from the date of the Judgment and Commitment.”
Green’s attorney, Gary Potts, attempted to tender the record to this court on February
6, 2009. However, the clerk’s office rejected it as untimely. Potts has now filed the instant
motion for rule on clerk in which he accepts responsibility for miscalculating the deadline
for filing the record, stating that he wrongly calculated the seven months from the filing date
CR09-155
of the amended judgment and commitment order, rather than the original judgment and
commitment order. See, e.g., Morris v. State, 373 Ark. 190, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008).
This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk in McDonald v. State, 356
Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There we said that there are only two possible reasons for
an appeal not being timely perfected: either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault,
or, there is “good reason.” 356 Ark. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. We explained:
Where an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney
filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not
timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with
two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault
should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself.
There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second,
where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was
not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this
court will decide whether good reason is present.
Id., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit
admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault
where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id.
In accordance with McDonald v. State, supra, Potts has candidly admitted fault. The
motion is, therefore, granted, and a copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee
on Professional Conduct.
-2-
CR09-155
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.