___________________________
PER CURIAM 10
Mark Anthony HOLSOMBACH v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 06550
___ S.W.3d ___
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered June 22, 2006
MOTIONS – MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK – FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARK. R. APP.
P.–CIV. 5(B). –Where it appeared that both parties were given notice of the extension
in which to file the record, but the request for extension was not properly brought by
the appellant, where there was no hearing held on the requested extension, and where
the order granting the extensionmade no reference to any findings of the circuit court,
the order of extension entered by the trial court was void; however, because counsel
for the appellant accepted responsibility for failing to comply with the requirements
of Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5 and for failing to timely file the record, the supreme court
granted appellant’s motion for rule on clerk.
Motion for Rule on Clerk; granted.
Taylor Law Firm, by: Stevan E. Vowell, for appellant.
No response.
HOLSOMBACH v. STATE
Page 2
Cite as 36_ Ark. ___ (2006)
___________________________
PER CURIAM 10
PER CURIAM. Appellant Mark Anthony Holsombach, by and through his attorney
Stevan E. Vowell, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. The record reflects that Appellant
timely filed his notice of appeal on November 28, 2005, making his record on appeal due on
or before February 26, 2006. On February 6, 2006, the Van Buren Circuit Court entered an
order extending the time for filing the transcript to May 15, 2006. When Appellant
attempted to tender the record on May 15, 2006, the clerk of this court refused to accept it
because the order of extension entered on February 6 did not comply with the requirements
of Ark. R. App. P.– Civ. 5(b). Appellant subsequently filed the present motion.
Rule 5(b)(1)(C) states in part:
(b) Extension of time.
(1) If any party has designated stenographically reported material for
inclusion in the record on appeal, the circuit court, by order entered before