Taylor v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. 324
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR10-749
Opinion Delivered September 9, 2010
SHIRLEY A. TAYLOR
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Shirley A. Taylor filed a motion for rule on clerk to file her record and have
her appeal docketed. The clerk refused to accept the record due to a perceived failure to
comply with Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c) (2010).
A jury found Appellant guilty on March 5, 2010. The judgment and commitment order
was filed on March 22, 2010. Though the notice of appeal was filed on March 8, 2010, it was
deemed filed on March 23, 2010. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(b)(1) (2010) states: “A notice of
appeal filed after the trial court announces a decision but before the entry of the judgment or
order shall be treated as filed on the day after the judgment or order is entered.”
On June 1, 2010, Appellant filed a timely motion for extension of time. The motion
for extension was granted and the time to file the record was extended to July 8, 2010. On July
2, 2010, Appellant tendered the record.
Currently Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1) governs extensions of time for filing the
record in a criminal case. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1) states:
Cite as 2010 Ark. 324
A motion by the defendant for an extension of time to file the record shall
explain the reasons for the requested extension, and a copy of the motion shall be
served on the prosecuting attorney. The circuit court may enter an order granting the
extension if the circuit court finds that all parties consent to the extension and that an
extension is necessary for the court reporter to include the stenographically reported
material in the record on appeal. If the prosecuting attorney does not file a written
objection to the extension within ten (10) days after being served a copy of the
extension motion, the prosecuting attorney shall be deemed to have consented to the
extension, and the circuit court may so find. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1).
Under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1), which now governs extensions of time to file the
record in a criminal case, the circuit court may grant the motion extending time if all parties
consent and if the extension is necessary for the court reporter to include the stenographically
reported material in the record on appeal.
Here, Appellant in her motion admits to causing some delay; however, the court
reporter says that the court schedule was a factor. The court’s order makes the findings
required under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1). The motion was timely and a reason other than
Appellant’s delay supported extension. Both the motion and the circuit court’s order comply
with Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c)(1). Thus, this motion is granted and the clerk is ordered to
lodge the record.
CORBIN, J., not participating.
-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.
