{
  "id": 6137337,
  "name": "Christopher TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State",
  "decision_date": "1998-09-16",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 97-1495",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 Ark. App. 82"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "973 S.W.2d 840"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298536
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "requiring such a discussion when the denial of a motion for directed verdict was mentioned"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "requiring such a discussion when the denial of a motion for directed verdict was mentioned"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ark. App. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138365
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "considering the sufficiency of the evidence in a \"no merit\" appeal, even though that issue was not raised in the bench trial"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "considering the sufficiency of the evidence in a \"no merit\" appeal, even though that issue was not raised in the bench trial"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/31/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ark. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1447531
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/322/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. App. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136460
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/36/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 2746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.739,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5223449320790517
    },
    "sha256": "e37278aba49077f5b3c5d22f1f0b1f57a944aebeefa9d1caf9d62c73b467d344",
    "simhash": "1:0a8ec222c304a68b",
    "word_count": 443
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:43.559988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Neal and Crabtree, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Christopher TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "D. Franklin Arey, III, Judge.\nThe Mississippi County Circuit Court revoked appellant Christopher Taylor\u2019s probation, and sentenced him to twenty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant brings this appeal from the revocation of his probation. Appellant\u2019s attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record, an abstract, and a brief, seeking to withdraw pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-3(j). We find that the abstract and brief submitted by appellant\u2019s attorney are not in compliance with Rule 4 \u2014 3(j) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Accordingly, we order rebriefing.\nThe abstract is deficient. See Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(6). Although appellant pled guilty to an earlier charge of battery, and received a term of ten years\u2019 supervised probation, the terms and conditions of appellant\u2019s probation are not abstracted. Likewise, the petition for revocation filed by the State, which led to the revocation appealed from, is not sufficiently abstracted; the abstract indicates that the petition \u201caileg[es] violations of [appellant\u2019s] terms and condition of probation,\u201d but those alleged violations are not abstracted. Because this appeal involves the revocation of appellant\u2019s probation, we must know the terms and conditions of his probation, and which of those terms and conditions were allegedly violated.\nFurther, the brief fails to cite any authorities, and contains absolutely no argument. \u201cThe mere assertion by counsel that the appeal is without merit is insufficient.\u201d Bigham v. State, 36 Ark. App. 22, 23, 820 S.W.2d 462 (1991). We note that appellant\u2019s probation was revoked following a bench trial. Thus, even if appellant did not question the sufficiency of the evidence below, that issue may be raised on appeal. See Witherspoon v. State, 322 Ark. 376, 909 S.W.2d 314 (1995); see also Petty v. State, 31 Ark. App. 119, 788 S.W.2d 744 (1990) (considering the sufficiency of the evidence in a \u201cno merit\u201d appeal, even though that issue was not raised in the bench trial). Appellant\u2019s attorney should set forth the State\u2019s evidence and explain its sufficiency for the revocation of appellant\u2019s probation. Cf. Skiver v. State, 330 Ark. 432, 954 S.W.2d 913 (1997) (requiring such a discussion when the denial of a motion for directed verdict was mentioned).\nAppellant\u2019s attorney is directed to file a new brief on or before October 19, 1998. In accordance with Rule 4-3(j)(2), appellant will then have thirty days from that date to raise any additional points.\nRebriefing ordered.\nNeal and Crabtree, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "D. Franklin Arey, III, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dana R. Davis, for appellant.",
      "No reponse."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Christopher TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 97-1495\n973 S.W.2d 840\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered September 16, 1998\nDana R. Davis, for appellant.\nNo reponse."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 108,
  "last_page_order": 109
}