Mark Anthony Holsombach v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Mark Anthony HOLSOMBACH v. STATE of Arkansas  CR 06­550  ___ S.W.3d ___  Supreme Court of Arkansas  Opinion delivered June 22, 2006  MOTIONS  – MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK  – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH  ARK. R. APP.  P.–CIV. 5(B). – Where it appeared that both parties were given notice of the extension  in which to file the record, but the request for extension was not properly brought by  the appellant, where there was no hearing held on the requested extension, and where  the order granting the extension made no reference to any findings of the circuit court,  the order of extension entered by the trial court was void; however, because counsel  for the appellant accepted responsibility for failing to comply with the requirements  of Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5 and for failing to timely file the record, the supreme court  granted appellant’s motion for rule on clerk.  Motion for Rule on Clerk; granted.  Taylor Law Firm, by: Stevan E. Vowell, for appellant.  No response. ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­ 10  HOLSOMBACH  v. STATE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 2  PER  CURIAM.  Appellant Mark Anthony Holsombach, by and through his attorney  Stevan E. Vowell, has filed a motion for rule on clerk.  The record reflects that Appellant  timely filed his notice of appeal on November 28, 2005, making his record on appeal due on  or before February 26, 2006.  On February 6, 2006, the Van Buren Circuit Court entered an  order  extending  the  time  for  filing  the  transcript  to  May  15,  2006.    When  Appellant  attempted to tender the record on May 15, 2006, the clerk of this court refused to accept it  because the order of extension entered on February 6 did not comply with the requirements  of Ark. R. App. P.–  Civ. 5(b).  Appellant subsequently filed the present motion.  Rule 5(b)(1)(C) states in part:  (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 . . . 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[.]  This  court  has  made  it  very  clear  that  we  expect  strict  compliance  with  the ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­ 10  HOLSOMBACH  v. STATE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Page 3  requirements of Rule 5(b), and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere  formality.  See, e.g., Hairgrove v. Oden, 365 Ark. 53, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam);  Hickson v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 357 Ark. 577, 182 S.W.3d 483 (2004) (per  curiam);  Rose Care, Inc. v. Jones, 355 Ark. 682, 144 S.W.3d 738 (2004) (per curiam).  Thus, before a trial court may enter an order of extension: (1) the appellant must request the  extension; (2) notice must be given to the appellee; (3) a hearing must be held on the request;  (4) the trial court must make findings to support an extension.  See Murphy v. Dumas, 343  Ark. 608, 36 S.W.3d 351 (2001) (per curiam).  Here,  though  it  appears  that  both  parties  were  given  notice  of  the  extension,  the  1  request for the extension was not properly brought by Appellant.  There was no hearing held  on the requested extension, and the order granting the extension makes no reference to any  findings of the circuit court.  As a result, the order of extension entered by the trial court was  void, but because counsel for Appellant has accepted responsibility for failing to comply  with the requirements of Rule 5 and timely filing the record in the instant case, we grant the  motion for rule on clerk.  A copy of this per curiam will be forwarded to the Committee on 1  The court reporter filed a “motion” requesting an extension of time to prepare the  transcript and stated therein that both the prosecutor and counsel for Appellant had agreed  to such an extension.  ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­ 10  HOLSOMBACH  v. STATE  Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)  Professional Conduct.  Motion granted. ___________________________  PER CURIAM  ­ 10  Page 4 

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.