Criminal Law · MBE-tested

David QUIGLEY v. STATE of Arkansas

295 Ark. 167747 S.W.2d 92·Arkansas Supreme Court·1988·AR

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

David QUIGLEY v. STATE of Arkansas RC 88-6 747 S.W.2d 92 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered March 28, 1988 David M. Clark, for appellant. No response. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. Petitioner, David Quigley, by his attorney, David M. Clark, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late due to his miscalculation of the ninety-day limit for filing the record in this court. See Ark. R. App. P. 5(a). We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243 (1981); In re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. In re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.