Anthony D. White v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 06-413 ANTHONY D. WHITE Opinion Delivered May 4, 2006 APPELLANT MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK VS. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE MOTIONS – REMANDED. MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK COURT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH – MATTER REMANDED TO CIRCUIT ARK. R. APP. P. – CIV. 5(B)(1)(C). – While the circuit judge found that the appellant had shown good cause for granting an extension of time in which to file the record and had extended the deadline, there was nothing in the court’s order to indicate that all parties had had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing; because the supreme court had made it clear that it expected strict compliance with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 5(b), and had held that the granting of an extension was not a mere formality, the supreme court remanded the matter to the circuit court for compliance with the rule. Motion for Rule on Clerk; remanded. Stuart Vess, for appellant. No response. PER CURIAM . Appellant Anthony D. White filed a motion for rule on clerk to file his record and have his appeal docketed. The clerk refused to docket the appeal based on a failure to comply with Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 5(b). Rule 5(b) concerns the extension of time within which to file the record and provides: (1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for inclusion in the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before expiration of the period prescribed by subdivision (a) of this rule or a prior extension order, may extend the time for filing the record only if it makes the following findings: (A) The appellant has filed a motion explaining the reasons for the requested extension and served the motion on all counsel of record; (B) The time to file the record on appeal has not yet expired; (C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing; (D) The appellant, in compliance with Rule 6(b), has timely ordered the stenographically reported material from the court reporter and made any financial arrangements required for its preparation; and (E) An extension of time is necessary for the court reporter to include the stenographically reported material in the record on appeal. Petras v. State, 363 Ark. 373, 374, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005). See also Camp v. State, 362 Ark. 100, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005). On January 5, 2006, the circuit judge found that appellant had shown good cause for granting an extension of time, and he extended the deadline to April 12, 2006; however, there is nothing in the order to indicate that “[a]ll parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at a hearing or by responding in writing,” as required by Ark. R. App. P. -2- CR06-384 – Civ. 5(b)(1)(C). This court has made it very clear that we expect strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 5(b) and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere formality. See Petras, supra. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the circuit judge for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1)(C). Remanded. -3- CR06-384

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.