{
  "id": 1715261,
  "name": "Darrell ELMORE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elmore v. State",
  "decision_date": "1980-03-17",
  "docket_number": "CR 80-34",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 Ark. 225"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "595 S.W.2d 218"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619097
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 Ark. 880",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1621158
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/258/0880-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 Ark. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719768
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/257/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719894
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0293-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 2739,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.897,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5747050893607213e-07,
      "percentile": 0.679300993996175
    },
    "sha256": "33a93782fc84006c0f05a20946a47cb2327171296855e4eaac780c07aac093ae",
    "simhash": "1:bbfec6ef6feacb87",
    "word_count": 448
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:03:10.426772+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Darrell ELMORE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nA jury fixed appellant\u2019s punishment at five years\u2019 imprisonment for breaking and entering and ten years\u2019 imprisonment for second degree forgery after finding him a habitual offender. Appellant contends for reversal that the trial court \u201cerred in allowing facially defective documents to be received into evidence for purposes of enhancing the defendant\u2019s sentence under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 (Repl. 1977).\u201d Appellant questions the sufficiency of the proof with regard to only one of his four previous convictions. His name is Darrell G. Elmore, Jr. It appears he is sometimes referred to as Darrell Elmore. He argues that since one of the certified copies of a judgment introduced into evidence reflects the name Darrell Gilmore, Jr., there was no substantial evidence to support a finding as to this particular conviction.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1003 (Repl. 1977) provides that a prior conviction may \u201cbe proved by any evidence that satisfies the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was convicted.\u201d The burden is on the state to prove the defendant\u2019s prior convictions for the purpose of sentencing under the habitual offender statute. Leggins v. State, 267 Ark. 293, 590 S.W. 2d 22 (1979); and McConahay v. State, 257 Ark. 328, 516 S.W. 2d 887 (1974). The state, however, is not limited to the methods of proof set forth in the statute. Parker v. State, 258 Ark. 880, 529 S.W. 2d 860 (1975); and Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510, 534 S.W. 2d 230 (1976). On appeal the test is whether there is substantial evidence from which the jury could have found that the appellant was previously convicted of the questioned felony. Leggins v. State, supra. Here in reviewing the evidence, together with the testimony of the deputy court clerk, it appears that a copy of the judgment captioned Darrell Gilmore, Jr., was accompanied by the commitment order on which the appellant\u2019s name, Darrell G. Elmore, Jr., was spelled correctly. These two documents were identical in every respect except as noted. The case number, the attorneys for the parties, and the offense (burglary and grand larceny) were the same. The documents and the clerk\u2019s testimony show the proceedings occurred in the same court on the same date. Appellant himself admitted on cross-examination that he was guilty of \u201call these convictions that were introduced.\u201d We hold there was ample substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s finding.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, by: Lavona Wilson, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Darrell ELMORE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 80-34\n595 S.W. 2d 218\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 17, 1980\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, by: Lavona Wilson, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 259,
  "last_page_order": 261
}