{
  "id": 6139768,
  "name": "Clyde WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. State",
  "decision_date": "1993-06-23",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 92-92",
  "first_page": "184",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ark. App. 184"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "854 S.W.2d 370"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "796 S. W.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6645026,
        6644510
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/32/0058-01",
        "/ark-app/32/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Ark. App. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6645026
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/32/0058-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1528,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.918,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0052889892850951e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5404243645092822
    },
    "sha256": "9c46f0352ab05978f06effb9b12cc8e1690f4894044ee4c566da8eb331860bc1",
    "simhash": "1:273ea447a39d4b34",
    "word_count": 254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:37:01.057819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clyde WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn an opinion not designated for publication, we affirmed the appellant\u2019s conviction. Williams v. State, CACR92-92 (op. del. October 7,1992). Our mandate was issued on October 27,1992. Approximately seven months later, on May 26,1993, the appellant\u2019s attorney filed this motion for attorney\u2019s fees. We deny the motion.\nNoting that efficiency requires us to consider motions for attorney\u2019s fees while the briefs are in our possession and the case is fresh in our minds, we denied a motion for attorney\u2019s fees filed approximately eight months after our decision was rendered in Terrell v. State, 32 Ark. App. 58, 796 S. W.2d 348 (1990). In so doing, we repeated earlier warnings that failure to file motions for attorney\u2019s fees in a timely manner could prevent an allowance of attorney\u2019s fees. Moreover, Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 6-6(c) provides that all motions for attorney\u2019s fees from attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases shall be filed no later than thirty days after the issuance of the mandate. Under the circumstances of this case, where no reason for the long delay in filing the motion is argued by the appellant\u2019s attorney or appears in the record before us, the motion is untimely under our decision in Terrell, supra, as well as under Rule 6-6(c). Consequently, the motion for attorney\u2019s fees is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. Davis Lofton, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clyde WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 92-92\n854 S.W.2d 370\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered June 23, 1993\nH. Davis Lofton, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0184-01",
  "first_page_order": 208,
  "last_page_order": 209
}