Bradley v. State

Johnny BRADLEY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-895                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 26, 1996


Appeal & error -- motion for extension of time to complete and file
     record -- exceptional circumstances -- motion granted. --
     Ordinarily, the supreme court does not allow an extension of
     time once the clerk and court reporter have been directed to
     return a writ on a certain date; however, where one court
     reporter had retired, leaving a new reporter with an increased
     burden, and where appellant's attorney was appointed only
     recently, and no delays in the case could be attributed to
     him, the circumstances were exceptional, and the supreme court
     granted appellant's motion for extension of time to complete
     and file the record and issued a new writ of certiorari to the
     clerk and court reporter of Ouachita County.


     Motion for Extension of Time to Complete and File the Record;
granted.
     Honey & Honey, P.A., for appellant.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.
     02-26-96 *ADVREP4*





JOHNNY BRADLEY,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE,



CR95-895


APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR94-91,
HON. JOHN GRAVES, JUDGE,




MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLETE AND FILE THE RECORD,
GRANTED.



                           Per Curiam




     
     The appellant seeks an extension of time in which to complete
and file his record on appeal.  Due to the special circumstances in
the case, we grant the motion.
     On October 23, 1995, we granted appellant's pro se motion for
a belated appeal.  Attorney Charles Honey was appointed to
represent the appellant and was directed to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari to complete the record.  The petition was filed
on December 11, 1995.  We issued the writ to the Ouachita County
clerk and court reporter on January 16, 1996, returnable on
February 15, 1996.  The writ has not been returned.
     On January 29, 1996, the appellant filed the instant motion
for an extension of time in which to complete and file the record. 
His motion states that the court reporter who originally recorded
the trial proceedings has retired, causing the new reporter to be
overloaded.
     Ordinarily, we do not allow an extension of time once the
clerk and court reporter have been directed to return a writ on a
certain date.  However, the circumstances in this case are
exceptional.  One court reporter has retired, leaving a new
reporter with an increased burden.  Additionally, the appellant's
attorney was appointed only recently and no delays in the case can
be attributed to him.  
     A new writ of certiorari is hereby issued to the clerk and
court reporter of Ouachita County, returnable on March 26, 1996.
     Motion granted.