Mancia v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR08-770
CRISTOBAL MANCIA,
Opinion Delivered
May 14, 2009
APPELLANT,
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR 2007-802-1,
HON. TOMMY J. KEITH, JUDGE,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE.
ORDER ISSUED.
PER CURIAM
Bruce J. Bennett was ordered to appear before this court to show cause why he should
not be held in contempt for failing to timely file a brief on behalf of his client, Cristobal
Mancia, on or before November 24, 2008, as previously ordered by this court.
The
procedural history of this matter is set forth in a recent per curiam opinion. Mancia v. State,
___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 16, 2009).
On May 7, 2009, Mr. Bennett appeared before this court, as ordered, and entered a
plea of guilty to the contempt charge. In mitigation, he stated that he had been told that
Appellant might employ new counsel. As explained by Mr. Bennett, he asked for several
extensions of time to file Appellant’s brief, “primarily to see if Appellant would employ new
counsel.” Mr. Bennett had also concluded that Appellant’s tender of a guilty plea would
necessitate the tender of a no-merit brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j). The requested extensions, according to Mr. Bennett,
allowed him “to make sure [he] was doing the right thing by filing a no-merit brief.” On
May 6, 2009, Mr. Bennett filed a motion to allow for filing of belated brief, in which he took
responsibility for his failure to timely file Appellant’s brief. He advised the court on May 7,
2009, that he was prepared to tender the no-merit brief to the clerk for filing.
Based on the foregoing, we accept Mr. Bennett’s guilty plea and find him in contempt.
We impose a fine of $250, to be paid within thirty days from the date of this order. A copy
of this per curiam will be forwarded to our Supreme Court Committee on Professional
Conduct to take any appropriate action the Committee deems necessary.
It is so ordered.
-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.
