WILLIAMS v. STATE, 259 Ark. 157 (1976)

Virgil WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas

No. 75-208.Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered January 26, 1976

APPEAL ERROR — ABSTRACTS BRIEFS — SCOPE OF SUPREME COURT RULES 11(F) 11(G). — Motion to waive the limitation on printing requirements in Rule 11(f) was denied without prejudice to appellant’s right to renew the motion since the 40-page restriction applies to briefs only; and the motion pursuant to Rule 11(g) that the Attorney General be required to print the briefs because appellant was an indigent represented by a public defender was granted.

PER CURIAM

Appellant asks this Court to waive the page limitation on printing requirements as set forth in our Supreme Court Rule No. 11(f), and also that, pursuant to 11(g), the Attorney General be required to print the briefs since appellant is an indigent represented by the public defender. The motion states that in the present case the abstract and brief together exceed the 40 page limitation for printing as set out in the Supreme Court Rule No. 11(F).

Appellant misinterprets the rule with respect to page limitation. The 40 page restriction applies to the brief only and not to the abstract and brief. The pertinent portion of the rule reads as follows:

The appellant’s brief in chief, before its printing, shall not exceed 40 doublespaced typewritten pages, with a similar 10-page limit upon the reply brief, except that if either limitation is shown to be too stringent in a particular case it may be waived by the Court on motion. (Emphasis added)

Accordingly, appellant’s motion with respect to the brief limitation is denied without prejudice to his right to renew the motion if deemed necessary.

Motion granted as to Rule No. 11(g).

Page 158