Steven Lee Smith v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS  No.  CR08­12  Opinion Delivered January 24, 2008  STEVEN LEE SMITH,  APPELLANT,  MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK  VS.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE,  GRANTED.  PER CURIAM  Appellant Steven Lee Smith, by and through his attorney, Scott A. Ellington, has filed  a  motion  for  rule  on  clerk  to  file  his  record  and  have  his  appeal  docketed.    Smith  was  convicted of fleeing, second­degree battery, two counts of aggravated assault, and leaving  the scene of an accident with personal injury.  A judgment and commitment order reflecting  his convictions was entered on May 24, 2007, and an amended judgment and commitment  order was entered on June 5, 2007.  Mr. Ellison filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2007, designating the May 24, 2007,  order as the order appealed from.  On September 13, 2007, the time for filing the record on  appeal was extended from September 18, 2007, until November 19, 2007, due to the court  reporter’s request for additional time to prepare the record.  After discussing the matter with  the court reporter, Mr. Ellison determined that the court reporter would need the full seven  months from the date of the judgment in which to complete the transcript.  Accordingly, Mr. CR08­12  Ellison obtained an additional order from the trial court on September 13, 2007, extending  the time for filing the record until January 3, 2008, a date that fell within seven months from  the judgment entered on June 5, 2007.  See Ark. R. App. P.—Civ. 5(b)(2) (2007).  Mr. Ellison attempted to lodge the transcript with our clerk’s office on January 3,  2008, but the clerk’s office rejected it, saying that the trial court was without jurisdiction to  extend the time for the filing of the record beyond December 24, 2007, or seven months from  the date of the entry of the first judgment and commitment order.  Mr. Ellison therefore filed  the instant motion for rule on clerk on January 3, 2008, arguing that Rule 5(b)(2) permits the  extension of time for lodging the record on appeal to be calculated form the latest date of  entry of a judgment and commitment order.  However, he cites no authority in support of this  argument.  In the alternative, Mr. Ellison accepts responsibility for miscalculating the time to file  the record.  This court clarified its treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for  belated appeals 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.”  McDonald v. State,  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 ­2­  CR08­12  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, Mr. Ellison has candidly admitted fault.  The  motion  is,  therefore,  granted.    A  copy  of  this  opinion  will  be  forwarded  to  the  Committee on Professional Conduct.  Motion granted. ­3­  CR08­12 

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.