TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McClendon v. State

Ricky McCLENDON v. STATE of Arkansas

McClendon v. State, 735 S.W.2d 701 (Ark. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 14, 1987
Docket
No. CR 86-211
Judges
Hickman
Citations
735 S.W.2d 701293 Ark. 1731987 Ark. LEXIS 2272

Opinion of the Court — Hickman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Darrell Hickman, Justice. This criminal case is not properly before us; therefore, we do not reach any issues raised regarding the appellant’s trial.

McClendon was convicted on February 2,1984, of rape and aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. No appeal was filed. On June 11, 1984, pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37, McClendon filed a petition for a new trial alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held a hearing and found that McClendon’s counsel did not perfect an appeal as he should have. On March 13,1986, the court ordered a new trial. The state filed a notice of appeal but did not perfect the appeal.

Instead, on July 29, over three months later, the state filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its order granting a new trial. The judge found that, instead of a new trial, the appellant should have been granted a belated appeal. The time for perfecting a belated appeal is 18 months, and it had expired. The trial judge ordered the appellant to request a belated appeal, and the case comes to us in this posture.

The appellant argues that the trial court could not amend its order for a new trial because Rule 37 explicitly states there will be no rehearing of these decisions. Rule 37.2(d) reads: “The decision of the court in any proceeding under this rule shall be final when the judgment is rendered. No motion for rehearing shall be considered.”

We agree with the appellant. While the appropriate remedy was to see that appellant was granted an appeal, the order for a new trial should stand. It was a final order. The state could have appealed and chose not to do so. The trial court was without authority to set its March order aside.

Therefore, the order of September 25, 1986, amending the March order, is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1989: 11998: 12007: 219892026peak 2007 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Broderick Collier v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections485 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 2007)
  2. Matthews v. State970 S.W.2d 289 (Ark. 1998)
  3. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Drake766 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1989)
  4. Broderick Collier v. Larry NorrisNo. 06-2519 (8th Cir. Apr. 16, 2007)

Most recent

  1. Broderick Collier v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections485 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. 2007)
  2. Broderick Collier v. Larry NorrisNo. 06-2519 (8th Cir. Apr. 16, 2007)
  3. Matthews v. State970 S.W.2d 289 (Ark. 1998)
  4. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Drake766 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list