Jones v. State.1

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 249 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. TEDDY JONES CR12-411 APPELLANT Opinion Delivered May 31, 2012 MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK, V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE GRANTED. PER CURIAM Appellant Teddy Jones, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. His attorney, Beverly C. Claunch, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on her part. 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. Id., 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit Cite as 2012 Ark. 249 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 v. State, supra, Ms. Claunch has candidly admitted fault. The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. 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.