{ "id": 6139737, "name": "Beatrice HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Houston v. State", "decision_date": "1993-10-13", "docket_number": "CA CR 92-653", "first_page": "167", "last_page": "169", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "43 Ark. App. 167" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "862 S.W.2d 292" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "42 Ark. App. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139768 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/42/0184-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "775 S.W.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6141617, 1886953, 6142007 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/28/0329-01", "/ark/300/0031-01", "/ark-app/28/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 Ark. App. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141617 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/28/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 Ark. App. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6143106 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/12/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "662 S.W.2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 6140298, 6140396 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0229-01", "/ark-app/10/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. App. 233", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140396 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/10/0233-01" ] }, { "cite": "627 S.W.2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Ark. App. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ark. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137332 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/41/0067-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 187, "char_count": 2470, "ocr_confidence": 0.916, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5522964274278852e-07, "percentile": 0.6752530746001022 }, "sha256": "30eba484e7bf61f252fe9689e2893ffece3acf69543540937950d4c0a9be4935", "simhash": "1:3336ee65a4576536", "word_count": 422 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:44.592852+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Beatrice HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn February 24, 1993, we affirmed appellant\u2019s conviction of delivery of controlled substance. Houston v. State, 41 Ark. App. 67, 848 S.W.2d 430 (1993). On September 23, 1993, appellant\u2019s attorney filed this motion for attorney\u2019s fees. We deny the motion.\nA two-month delay between rendition of our decision and the motion for attorney\u2019s fees prompted us in 1982 to advise the bar that motions for attorney\u2019s fee should be filed in this court in time for them to be considered at the time the case is considered on its merits. Cristee v. State, 8 Ark. App. 33, 627 S.W.2d 38 (1982). We explained in Cristee that when motions for fees are delayed we are required to obtain and reconsider the briefs in order to determine the fees. Id.\nA three-month delay prompted a similar explanation in Stefanovich v. State, 10 Ark. App. 233, 662 S.W.2d 476 (1984). Our request that motions for attorney\u2019s fees be filed so that we can consider them at the time the case was decided was, in Stefa-novich, coupled with a warning that failure to do so could prevent an allowance or attorney\u2019s fee. Id.\nAlthough we granted attorney\u2019s fees in both Cristee and Stefanovich, in Fiveash v. State, 12 Ark. App. 391, 676 S.W.2d 769 (1984), we denied a motion for attorney\u2019s fees filed eight months after our decision was rendered.\nIn Scott v. State, 28 Ark. App. 329, 775 S.W.2d 513 (1989), we granted a motion for attorney\u2019s fees filed four months after our decision was rendered, and repeated the warnings in Fiveash, Stefanovich, and Cristee, supra.\nIn Terrell v. State, 32 Ark. App. 58, 796 S.W.2d 348 (1990), we denied a motion for attorney\u2019s fees filed over eight months after our decision was rendered. In that per curiam opinion, we reviewed our prior warnings about filing motions for attorney\u2019s fees promptly and repeated the explanation for this requirement.\nIn Williams v. State, 42 Ark. App. 184, 854 S.W.2d 370 (1993), we denied a motion for attorney\u2019s fees filed approximately seven months following issuance of our mandate.\nThis opinion is being published as notice to the bar that hereafter, if no good cause for delay in filing the motion is presented, we will deny motions for attorney\u2019s fees filed more than sixty (60) days after our mandate issues.\nThe motion for attorney\u2019s fees is denied.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "James H. Phillips, for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Beatrice HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 92-653\n862 S.W.2d 292\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered October 13, 1993\nJames H. Phillips, for appellant." }, "file_name": "0167-01", "first_page_order": 189, "last_page_order": 191 }