Rice v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 93 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR12-577 Opinion Delivered LEON JACKSON RICE APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS February 28, 2013 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR TRANSCRIPT AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 10-1733, HON. HERBERT T. WRIGHT, JR., JUDGE] APPELLEE MOTIONS GRANTED. PER CURIAM Appellant Leon Jackson Rice filed in the trial court a timely petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2012) that challenged his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver cocaine and resisting arrest.1 The petition was denied. Appellant has lodged an appeal of the order in this court, and he now brings two motions in which he seeks a copy or use of the transcript of his trial and an extension of time in which to file his brief. In his motion requesting access to the trial transcript, appellant alleges that access to the record is required in order to present documents related to his arguments in the brief. Appellant is proceeding pro se, and access to the record is necessary in order to prepare his brief. See Reed v. State, 2009 Ark. 423 (per curiam). We grant appellant s motion requesting 1 The judgment challenged also reflects that appellant was found not guilty on a charge of second-degree battery and that he was sentenced to an aggregate term of confinement of 360 months incarceration in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Cite as 2013 Ark. 93 access to the record. Our clerk is directed to provide appellant with a copy of the record. The copy of the record must be returned to this court when appellant s brief is tendered, or the brief will not be filed. Appellant s request for an extension of time is the first such request by appellant in this appeal. Appellant avers that an extension is required because he requires the trial transcript in order to complete his brief. We grant the motion. Appellant s brief is now due thirty days from the date of this opinion. Motions 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.
