{
  "id": 1624179,
  "name": "Daniel Lon GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. State",
  "decision_date": "1973-06-25",
  "docket_number": "CR 73-61",
  "first_page": "741",
  "last_page": "742",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 Ark. 741"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "495 S.W.2d 864"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "357 S.W. 2d 449",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10161646
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/357/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684736
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S.W. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 883",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1374014
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/169/0883-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627490
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0462-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1856,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5861735926310466e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6812673248517578
    },
    "sha256": "bf819538e44a7cea35d1cbee6df0df26d5a8d275cf642dc6a862cd611882f3be",
    "simhash": "1:af3e968ff317b3d4",
    "word_count": 300
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:26:13.512056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel Lon GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nIn Graham v. State, 253 Ark. 462, 486 S.W. 2d 678 (1972), we were \u201cobliged to reduce appellant\u2019s sentence\u201d for his first degree murder conviction \u201cfrom death to life , imprisonment as being the next highest available penalty.\u201d We, also, remanded the case to the trial court for consideration as to whether such life sentence should run concurrently or consecutively with appellant\u2019s prior life sentence \u201c[s]ince the commitment to be issued by the trial court may affect appellant\u2019s status as a prisoner. . . .\u201d On this appeal, appellant contends the lower court erred in directing that his life sentences be served consecutively. We cannot agree.\nThe trial court considered, and rightfully so, the effect the consecutive sentences could have upon \u201cappellant\u2019s status as a prisoner.\u201d Further, the question of whether two separate sentences should run concurrently or consecutively lies solely within the province of the trial court. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2312 (1971 Supp.); Hayes v. State, 169 Ark. 883, 277 S.W. 36 (1925); Higgins v. State, 235 Ark. 153, 357 S.W. 2d 449 (1962).\nNeither can we agree with appellant\u2019s subordinate contention that the trial court erred in failing to direct that appellant\u2019s money ($358) taken from him upon his arrest be returned. In the circumstances, we cannot say that the method employed by the trial court in directing the $358 be paid into the county treasury, in partial satisfaction of the costs (approximately $5,000) of appellant\u2019s trial is prejudicial to appellant since the method he urges the court should have followed would achieve the same result.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Lineberger and John Barry Baker, for appellant.",
      "Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Charles A. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel Lon GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 73-61\n495 S.W. 2d 864\nOpinion delivered June 25, 1973\nJohn Lineberger and John Barry Baker, for appellant.\nJim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by: Charles A. Banks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0741-01",
  "first_page_order": 763,
  "last_page_order": 764
}