Rodney Bragg v. State of Arkansas

Rodney BRAGG v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-820                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 27, 1997


Appeal & error -- motion to file belated brief granted. -- On appellant's 
     motion to file a belated brief, the supreme court granted a
     thirty-day extension, noting that the fact that another person
     in counsel's office was handling the appeal was not a valid
     reason for noncompliance with an earlier Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
     3(h) deadline; nor was a crowded work schedule adequate
     justification for extending the time for filing the corrected
     abstract by an additional ninety days.


     Motion to File Belated Brief; granted.
     Charles L. Honey, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Gil Dudley, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Per Curiam.
     Appellant Rodney Bragg by his attorney, Charles L. Honey,
moves the court for an additional 90 days in which to file
appellant's brief.  According to the facts in Bragg's motion, his
original brief was filed on August 12, 1996.  On August 29, 1996,
the State moved that Bragg comply with Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h),
and that motion was granted by this court on September 16, 1996. 
Bragg was given until October 26, 1996, to comply with Rule 4-3(h).
     Counsel for Bragg now shows the court that he did not receive
the letter from the Supreme Court Clerk's office advising him of
the October 26, 1996 deadline until December 17, 1996.  The reason
for this, he states, is that another employee at his law firm
handled the Bragg appeal, and that person has now left this firm. 
Current counsel for Bragg also informs this court that he is busy
with other appeals.  The Attorney General's office does not object
to the 90-day extension.
     We grant a 30-day extension from date of this order.  We do
not view the fact that another person in counsel's office was
handling the Bragg appeal as a valid reason for noncompliance with
the October 26, 1996 deadline of this court.  Nor is a crowded work
schedule adequate justification for extending the time for filing
the corrected abstract by an additional 90 days.  Bowen v. State,
320 Ark. 342, 895 S.W.2d 941 (1995).
     Because we do not find justification for failure to comply
with the October 26, 1996 order of this court, a copy of this
opinion will be sent to the Committee on Professional Conduct.