Green v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 150
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR11-254
Opinion Delivered
RONALD DERON GREEN,
APPELLANT,
April 7, 2011
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Ronald Deron Green appeals from a judgment entered by the Desha County
Circuit Court on September 9, 2010, reflecting that he had been found guilty by a jury of
delivery of cocaine and sentenced to 900 months’ imprisonment. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal on October 8, 2010:
Ronald Green designates the complete Circuit Court record—including all evidence,
transcripts of all hearings and testimony, and all pleadings and rulings filed with the
Circuit Clerk as the record on appeal. The transcript has been ordered and financial
arrangements have been made with the court reporter as required by Ark. Code Ann.
§ 16-13-510(c).
On December 20, 2010, appellant tendered the record. However, our clerk’s office notified
appellant’s counsel, Dale West, that volume 4 of the record and the reporter’s certificate were
absent from the record. On March 11, 2011, West filed a motion for rule on clerk asserting
that after he received the notice of deficiencies with the record, he contacted the Desha
County Circuit Clerk’s Office and was informed that the office had volume 4 of the original
Cite as 2011 Ark. 150
record and that it would be mailed to him. West asserts in the motion that he never received
volume 4 and that he had never had such trouble in obtaining a correct record. He apologized
for any delay the situation may have caused.
Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(b), appellant had ninety days from the filing of
the notice of appeal to file the record with the clerk of the appellate court. A partial record
was tendered within that time period; however, a complete record was not submitted until
March 11, 2011, which was beyond the ninety-day period. The responsibility for perfecting
an appeal rests solely with the petitioner, not the circuit clerk, the circuit court, or any other
person. See Spurlock v. Riddell, 373 Ark. 199, 282 S.W.3d 811 (2008) (per curiam); Sullivan
v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam). Here, West should have filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record as authorized by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 3-5
before the expiration of the ninety-day period.
This court will grant a motion for rule on clerk when the record was not timely lodged
due to attorney error. Rogers v. State, 353 Ark. 359, 107 S.W.3d 166 (2003) (per curiam).
When it is plain from the motion, any affidavits, and the record that relief is proper under our
rule based upon attorney error, then relief will be granted. McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106,
146 S.W.3d 883 (2004). Although West does not admit fault, it is plain from the record that
he erred in failing to file a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record; therefore, we
grant the motion for rule on clerk. As the motion is granted based upon attorney error, a copy
of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See id.
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.
