Marcel Wayne Williams v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
Marcel Wayne WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-949                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 23, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief
     granted. -- Noting that appellant's counsel had previously been
     granted a six-month final extension, the supreme court granted
     appellant an extension of thirty days to file his brief.

2.   Contempt -- show-cause order issued. -- Where counsel failed to meet
     the deadline under a final extension for filing appellant's
     brief, the supreme court ordered him to appear before it and
     show cause why he should not be held in contempt.


     Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief;
granted.
     Show-Cause Order issued.
     Herbert T. Wright, Jr., for appellant.
     No response.

     Per Curiam. 
     Counsel for appellant Marcel Wayne Williams, who is Herbert T.
Wright, Jr., moves for a þcontinuanceþ of three months in which to
file appellantþs brief in a case where Williams received a sentence
of death by lethal injection.  In reviewing the history of this
case, we note where on September 9, 1997, we granted counselþs
motion for a six-month extension in which to file appellantþs
brief.  When the clerk of this court, Leslie Steen, advised counsel
of the extension, he noted in bold letters that this was the final
extension.  Under this extension, appellantþs brief was due on
March 23, 1998.  The State objects to any additional extension of
time in which to file the appellantþs brief.
     We grant the appellant an extension of thirty days from date
of this order to file his brief.
     Because counsel has failed to meet the deadline under a final
extension for filing appellantþs brief, he is ordered to appear
before this court at 9:00 a.m. on May 7, 1998, and show cause why
he should not be held in contempt.

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.