Banks v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR09-838
KEVIN BANKS,
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT,
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Kevin Banks, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on
the clerk. His attorney, Lea Ellen Fowler, states in the motion that she misinterpreted the
Order extending 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.” 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, Ms. Fowler 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.
2
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.