 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Risher v. State, No. CR 03-311,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 17, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the order referred to in appellant's notice of appeal made no reference to which postconviction petition filed by appellant that it was denying, the court was forced to affirm the trial court's judgment because appellant did not meet his burden of bringing up a record sufficient to demonstrate that the trial court was in error.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, No. CR 04-1331,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 17, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to lodge the record belatedly was treated as a motion for rule on the clerk under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 2-2(b) and was denied where, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. Civ. 5(b), the record had to be lodged within 90 days, and defendant failed to show that his error constituted good cause for his failure to perfect the appeal.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. State, No. CR 04-1212,
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, February 17, 2005, Opinion Delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and duplication of his brief at public expense was denied where appellant only stated in a conclusory manner that the issues on appeal were complex and that his knowledge of the law was limited but made no statement as to the merit of the appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
