McKenzie v. State

354 Ark. 479 (2003) (Ark. 2003) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 16, 2003 · No. CR 03-775

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied Kevin McKenzie's attorney's second motion to withdraw as counsel and motion for rule on the clerk. The court held that counsel failed to comply with its prior order requiring association with an Arkansas-licensed attorney and an affidavit accepting responsibility for the untimely filing of the record, while allowing thirty days to cure the deficiency.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 16, 2003
Docket number
CR 03-775
Procedural posture
Appellant's attorney filed a second motion to withdraw as counsel and a motion for rule on the clerk after the record was not timely filed. The Arkansas Supreme Court denied both motions.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court per curiam opinion
Parties
Kevin McKenzie, a/k/a Keith Barrett v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
other

Topics

appellate procedurecriminal procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

appellate procedurecriminal procedureattorney discipline

Questions Presented

  1. Whether counsel's second motion to withdraw complied with the Supreme Court's prior order and Rule XIV.
  2. Whether the appellant was entitled to a motion for rule on the clerk when counsel had not accepted full responsibility for the untimely filing of the record.

Holdings

  1. The second motion to withdraw was deficient because counsel did not file it jointly with an Arkansas-licensed attorney as required by Rule XIV and the court's prior order.
  2. The motion for rule on the clerk was denied because counsel failed to accept full responsibility for the untimely filing and the record was filed by a person not admitted to practice in Arkansas.

Key quotations

If appellant's attorney shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam order a motion and affidavit in this case accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the record, the motion will be granted, and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to Tennessee's Committee on Professional Conduct. (174)
Failure to timely file the required motion and affidavit will require a hearing to show cause why Mr. Waldman should not be held in contempt of this Court. (174)

Factual background

Appellant's record was not timely filed. Appellant's attorney, Charles E. Waldman, associated with Alvin Q. Malone, who was licensed in Arkansas, during the trial proceedings, but Waldman did not file the required motion jointly with Malone. The record was filed by a person not admitted to practice in Arkansas, and Waldman did not submit an affidavit accepting full responsibility for the untimely filing.

Procedural history

The case arose from proceedings in Crawford County Circuit Court. The Supreme Court had previously denied counsel's motion to withdraw because it did not comply with Rule XIV and did not include an affidavit accepting responsibility for the untimely filing of the transcript. Counsel filed the present second motion but again failed to associate with an Arkansas-licensed attorney and filed the record through a person not admitted to practice in Arkansas. The Supreme Court denied the present motions, while allowing that a compliant motion and affidavit filed within thirty days would result in granting the motion for rule on the clerk.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…