{
  "id": 8153066,
  "name": "Victor RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rasmussen v. State",
  "decision_date": "2008-12-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 08-1319",
  "first_page": "242",
  "last_page": "243",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "375 Ark. 242"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "289 S.W.3d 465"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "356 Ark. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5369074
      ],
      "weight": 8,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        },
        {
          "page": "891",
          "parenthetical": "footnote omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "116"
        },
        {
          "page": "891"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/356/0106-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "875 S.W.2d 836",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1443744,
        1443853
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0042-01",
        "/ark/317/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443744
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0042-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3475,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20088063049235688
    },
    "sha256": "ae3b751f5ae15ee4d5efe42794e31929d853d1080035e1259a7ffb29c2d6fdd0",
    "simhash": "1:297afba78daf93f3",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:16.941269+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Victor RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Victor Rasmussen, by and through his attorney, Justin B. Hurst, has filed a motion for rule on clerk. On March 21, 2008, a jury found Appellant Victor Rasmussen guilty of sexual assault in the first degree for which he was sentenced to 180 months, and sexual assault in the fourth degree, for which he was sentenced to 72 months. The judgment was entered on March 24, 2008. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2008. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(a), which is applicable pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 4(a), the deadline for filing the record on appeal was July 13, 2008.\nAppellant timely filed a motion to extend the time within which to file the record in this court, on June 11, 2008, requesting an additional ninety (90) days. However, the order granting his motion was never filed with the circuit court clerk\u2019s office and did not comply with Rule 5(b)(1)(C) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil in that it failed to show that all parties had an opportunity to be heard on the motion. Although the Appellant timely filed his motion for extension of time to file the record, the order granting his motion was never filed making the Appellant\u2019s tender of the record on October 10, 2008, untimely.\nRasmussen moves this court to accept a belated appeal. Despite Appellant\u2019s failure to properly perfect this appeal, the State cannot penalize a criminal defendant by declining to consider his first appeal when counsel has failed to follow the appellate rules. Franklin v. State, 317 Ark. 42, 875 S.W.2d 836 (1994) (per curiam). In McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004), we clarified our treatment of motions for rule on clerk and motions for belated appeals:\nWhere an appeal is not timely perfected, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, or there is good reason that the appeal was not timely perfected. The party or attorney filing the appeal is therefore faced with two options. First, where the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault, fault should be admitted by affidavit filed with the motion or in the motion itself. There is no advantage in declining to admit fault where fault exists. Second, where the party or attorney believes that there is good reason the appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will decide whether good reason is present.\nId. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891 (footnote omitted). While this court no longer requires an affidavit admitting fault before we will consider the motion, an attorney should candidly admit fault where he has erred and is responsible for the failure to perfect the appeal. See id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d at 891. When it is plain from the motion, affidavits, and record that relief is proper under either rule based on error or good reason, the relief will be granted. See id. If there is attorney error, a. copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See id.\nIt is plain from Appellant\u2019s motion that there was error on Mr. Hurst\u2019s part. Mr. Hurst has also assumed responsibility for the error. Pursuant to McDonald v. State, supra, we grant Appellant\u2019s motion for rule on clerk and forward a copy of this opinion to the Committee on Professional Conduct.\nMotion granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Justin B. Hurst, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Victor RASMUSSEN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 08-1319\n289 S.W.3d 465\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 11, 2008\nJustin B. Hurst, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0242-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 273
}