Carr v State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
PER CURIAM Christi Carr, by hcr attorney,Joshua R. Meister, has filecl On Novenrbcr 1 7 a nrotion for rr,rle on clerk. ,2011, the circr-rit court entered its ordcr tcnninating Carr's p:rrental rights, and Carr tir-ncly filed hcr notice of appeal on Novenrber 30, 2011 . l)ursttant to Arkansas Strprcrrre Court l\ule 6-9(d) (2011), Carr's recorcl rvas duc by Fcbrtrarl 8,2012; hor,vcver, the rccord was not tcndercd to this court's clcrk until Mrry 21.2012. Mr. Mcister asserts in tl-re nrotion that hc nlrilcd thc rccord to this corlrt's clerk on Jarrlr;rry 28, 2012, ancl onc nronth latcr, called tl'rc clerk to irrquire as to r,vhethcr thc nratter had bcen dockcted for action, to rvhich the clcrk responclcd in thc ncsativc. Mr. Meistcr clainrs that dcspitc his continucd inquiry of thc clcrk's ofllcc ovcr thc ncxt two t-ttonths, his packagc w:ls ncvcr receivcd by this court's clcrk. Accordingly. he has filcd the inst;rnt tnotion on Carr's behalf and tendered the record. This cotrrt clarified its treatnrent of nrotior-rs for rtrle on clerk and nrotions for belated appeals in McDonald u. Stata,356 Ark. 1.06, 1.46 S.W.3d 883 (2004). There we said: Whcre an appeal is not timely perfected, either the parry or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not tir-nely perfbcted. The parry or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the parry or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be adnritted by affidavit filed with the nrotior-r or in the nrotion itself There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, r,vhere the parry or attorney believes that there is good reason the appcal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be nrade in the motion, and this corlrt will decide whether good reason is present. 356 Ark. at 116,146 S.!Y.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an a{lidavit adr-nitting f,rult belore we r,vill consider the nrotion, an attorney sl-rould candidly adnrit lault where he or shc has erred and is responsible lor the failure to perlect the appcal. See id. Whcn it cithel rulc based attorncy crror, a is plain fronr the motion, afEdavits, and rccord that rclicf is proper ttttdcr on error or good reasolt, the rclief will bc grantcd. Scc irl. If therc is copy of thc opinion rvill bc fbrwardcd to tlte Conrtrrittcc ott Professtorral Conclrtct. Scr'id. It is plaip fiont thc tirtrcly fllc tlrc rccorcl, as it ptrrsrrrrrrt to ^\i(cDollriltl. nrotior"r that thcre was error ott r,vas sttprn, not thc rcsponsibility of thc postal scrvicc to titllcly wc grant Carr's nrotion fbr nrlc on clerk attcl ionr,;lrcl this optinion to the Conutrittcc on Prolcssional Condtrct. Motion grantccl. Mr. Meistcr's part in failine to lr c1o stl. copy cli
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.
