Banks v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 299
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR11-660
Opinion Delivered 7-27-11
KEVIN BANKS,
APPELLANT,
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
MOTION GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Kevin Banks, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on
clerk. His attorney, Darrell F. Brown, Jr., admits in the motion that he is responsible for
failing to tender the record on time.
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.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 299
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, supra, Mr. Brown has candidly admitted fault. The
motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on
Professional Conduct.
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.