{
  "id": 6137571,
  "name": "Alishisa OFOCHEBE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ofochebe v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-12-02",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 91-333",
  "first_page": "92",
  "last_page": "93",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ark. App. 92"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "844 S.W.2d 373"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "476 U.S. 79",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12787
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/476/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 U.S. 75",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1494770
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "82"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/488/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "744"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2458,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.906,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2168749448078592e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7771821832083646
    },
    "sha256": "15d1a047dcd15ccb915e4bee5414bf25a946cc86bf192d2fef71084bb0252a30",
    "simhash": "1:76584e8caf0ce95d",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:57.058600+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Danielson and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Alishisa OFOCHEBE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nAlishisa Ofochebe was one of three drivers involved in a traffic accident in Garland County which caused two deaths. She was charged with and convicted of two counts of manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively.\nAppellant\u2019s counsel has now filed a no-merit brief stating that he \u201chas examined the record of these proceedings and found no reversible errors.\u201d Counsel\u2019s brief then discusses a list of \u201cadverse rulings which could possibly support an appeal.\u201d\nThe procedure for the filing of a no-merit brief is governed by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Rule 11 (h) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. The test is not whether counsel thinks the trial court committed no reversible error, but rather whether the points to be raised on appeal would be \u201cwholly frivolous.\u201d Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Under Anders, the appellate court is also required to make a determination \u201cafter a full examination of all the proceedings,\u201d whether the case is wholly frivolous. Similarly, Rule 11 (h) permits the filing of a no-merit brief only when \u201cthe appeal is wholly without merit.\u201d\nAfter examining the record we are not convinced that the appeal is wholly without merit or \u201cso frivolous that it may be decided without any adversary presentation.\u201d Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82 (1988). We need not and do not determine whether error was committed; we hold merely that some of the issues raised are not \u201cwholly frivolous.\u201d\nBy way of example there exists in this case an issue under the United States Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). That issue clearly deserves an adversary presentation. Many of the other adverse rulings received by appellant were on evidentiary matters. Some of the points are wholly without merit. Others, however, are not so frivolous as to obviate the need for a full adversary presentation.\nFor the reasons stated, and pursuant to Anders v. California, counsel\u2019s motion to withdraw is denied, and the case is remanded for rebriefing in adversary form. A new briefing schedule is established to start December 2, 1992.\nDanielson and Rogers, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Becker and Terri Harris, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alishisa OFOCHEBE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 91-333\n844 S.W.2d 373\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered December 2, 1992\nDaniel D. Becker and Terri Harris, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0092-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 113
}