{
  "id": 6141552,
  "name": "Larry E. HERITAGE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heritage v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-07-05",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 88-254",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "329",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 Ark. App. 328"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "775 S.W.2d 80"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.88,
    "sha256": "d160bf302d309d96981b9c3e875f13349e06d48b8532f544f39337d0ec30a78d",
    "simhash": "1:0b9543c26c2e7f3a",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:20.618919+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Larry E. HERITAGE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellee in this criminal case, the State of Arkansas, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the appellant has failed to file a brief. The State asserts that the appellant\u2019s attorney has been contacted both by the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals and the Attorney General\u2019s office, but that no brief has been filed.\nOur Clerk\u2019s records indicate that the record in this appeal was filed on November 3,1988, and the appellant\u2019s brief was due to be filed on December 13, 1988. The appellant\u2019s attorney, who was apparently retained by the appellant rather than appointed according to our records, has not filed a brief. No motion for extension of time or motion to file a belated brief has been filed, nor has the attorney, Richard Tuberville, responded to a letter sent by our Clerk on January 19, 1989, notifying him that his brief was overdue.\nAlthough Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 10 provides for dismissal of civil cases where no brief is filed, there is no corresponding rule in criminal cases. Therefore, we allow the appellant until August 7, 1989, to file a brief. The appellant may retain new counsel if he wishes, or, if the appellant now believes himself to be indigent and therefore unable to afford retained counsel, he may apply for appointment of counsel by filing the appropriate documents with the Clerk of this Court. If no brief is filed within the period allowed by this per curiam, either by present counsel, new counsel, or by the appellant pro se, this appeal will be dismissed.\nThe Clerk of this Court is directed to serve a copy of this per curiam on the appellant; the appellee; the surety on the appellant\u2019s bond, Ace Bonding Company; and on the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard Tuberville, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Larry E. HERITAGE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 88-254\n775 S.W.2d 80\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 5, 1989\nRichard Tuberville, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 354,
  "last_page_order": 355
}