Holt v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 167
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR 10-1164
Opinion Delivered
GREGORY H. HOLT
Appellant
v.
April 14, 2011
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE
BELATED PRO SE BRIEF [PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR
2009-2188, HON. MARION
HUMPHREY, JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PRO SE MOTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2010, appellant Gregory H. Holt was found guilty of aggravated residential burglary
and domestic battering in the first degree for which he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence
of life imprisonment. An appeal from that judgment has been lodged in this court. Appellant
is represented on appeal by his retained attorney Edward G. Adcock, who also represented
him at trial.
The briefing schedule set for the appeal provided that the appellant’s brief-in-chief was
due to be filed January 31, 2011. A clerk’s extension was granted, making the brief due to be
filed February 7, 2011. Counsel requested and was granted a second extension of time by
written motion, making the brief due to be filed March 9, 2011. A final extension of time was
granted on March 8, 2011, making the brief due to be filed March 17, 2011. The brief was
not filed by that date, and no motion to file a belated brief has been filed by counsel.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 167
On April 4, 2011, the pro se motion that is now before us was filed. In the motion,
appellant notes that the brief has not been filed by his attorney. He asks to be permitted to file
a belated pro se brief so that the appeal may go forward.
Mr. Adcock is attorney-of-record for this appeal and obligated to represent the
appellant until such time as he may be relieved of that responsibility by this court. Ark. R.
App. P.—Crim. 16 (2010). Mancia v. State, 2009 Ark. 208, 306 S.W.3d 10 (per curiam). He
is directed to file within seven days of the date of this opinion a motion to file a belated brief.
The appellant’s pro se motion is moot.
A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
Pro se motion moot.
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.
