SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR08-224
HARVEY BOND, JR.,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered March 13, 2008
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
REMANDED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Harvey Bond, Jr., by and through his attorney, Phillip A. McGough, has
filed a motion for rule on the clerk to file his record and have his appeal docketed. The clerk
refused to accept the record. The record before us does not show strict compliance with Ark.
R. App. P.–Civ. 5(b)(1)(C), as all parties have not had an opportunity to be heard on
appellant’s motions to extend time for filing the transcript.
We have held that Rule 5(b)(1) applies to both civil and criminal cases for the
determination of the timeliness of a record on appeal. See Roy v. State, 367 Ark. 178, 238
S.W.3d 117 (2006)(per curiam). Rule 5(b)(1) provides in pertinent part:
(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:
(C) All parties have had the opportunity to be heard on the motion, either at
ahearing or by responding in writing;
We have made it clear that there must be strict compliance with the requirements of
-2-
CR08-224
Rule 5(b), and that we do not view the granting of an extension as a mere formality. See
White v. State, 366 Ark. 295, 234 S.W.3d 882 (2006); Rackley v. State, 366 Ark. 232, 234
S.W.3d 314 (2006). We bring to your attention Keela McGahey v.State, ___ Ark. ___, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Dec. 13, 2007), wherein this court explained that, upon a remand for
compliance with Ark. R. App. P. –Civ. 5(b)(1)(C), the circuit court shall determine whether
the rule was complied with at the time the original motion for extension of time was filed and granted.
This court further stated that the circuit court should not permit the parties the oppor