{
  "id": 6141453,
  "name": "William Jay JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1994-07-06",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 93-724",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "46 Ark. App. 318"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "880 S.W.2d 319"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "856 S.W.2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6139883
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/42/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ark. App. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139737
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/43/0167-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1547,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.827,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17494552771223343
    },
    "sha256": "8817310a0c0f4d61982a9d1308495cc059e1f37a6b60cc8f354fa05dc65dc177",
    "simhash": "1:86326c046c0f28a3",
    "word_count": 257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:20.155315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Jay JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn April 13, 1994, by an unpublished opinion, we affirmed appellant\u2019s conviction of two counts of aggravated robbery. On June 13, 1994, forty-one days after our mandate issued May 3, 1994, appellant\u2019s attorney filed this motion for an attorney\u2019s fee.\nMotions for attorney\u2019s fees from attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases are required by Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 6-6(c) to be filed not later than thirty days after issuance of the mandate. Heretofore we have exercised our discretion to consider such motions for attorney\u2019s fees filed significantly later than thirty days after the mandate issued. However, by per curiam opinion delivered October 13, 1993, we gave notice that we would no longer consider motions for attorney\u2019s fees filed more than sixty days after our mandate issues. Houston v. State, 43 Ark. App. 167, 856 S.W.2d 326 (1993). Because appellant\u2019s motion for an attorney\u2019s fee in this case was filed within sixty days after issuance of our mandate we will grant the motion.\nThis opinion is being published as notice to the bar that hereafter, consistent with Rule 6-6(c), we will no longer consider motions for attorney\u2019s fees filed more than thirty days after our mandate issues unless good cause for delay in filing the motion is presented.\nThe motion for attorney\u2019s fee is granted in the amount of $650.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard Turberville, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Jay JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 93-724\n880 S.W.2d 319\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered July 6, 1994\nRichard Turberville, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 348,
  "last_page_order": 349
}