{
  "id": 8717585,
  "name": "Earnest L. BAKER v. LOCKHART, Director, Board of Pardons and Parole",
  "name_abbreviation": "Baker v. Lockhart",
  "decision_date": "1986-01-21",
  "docket_number": "85-293",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "288 Ark. 91"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "702 S.W.2d 403"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "233 Ark. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1691621
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/233/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ark. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1746990
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0180-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.937,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8311629645202877e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7207595886864446
    },
    "sha256": "2ea7f3d12ddca63f6ec33bfa60d60c9437d72f40554b11a5ca9db3d0c381cc85",
    "simhash": "1:5953123e33161120",
    "word_count": 229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:45:27.788923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Earnest L. BAKER v. LOCKHART, Director, Board of Pardons and Parole"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn July, 1985, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court on the ground that he had been denied due process and equal protection of law by being twice denied release on parole. The trial court concluded that a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper remedy to challenge the parole board\u2019s action and dismissed the petition. Appellant filed a notice of appeal and lodged the record. He now requests appointment of counsel.\nThe motion is denied and the appeal dismissed. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is restricted to the questions of whether the petitioner is in custody pursuant to a valid conviction and whether the convicting court had proper jurisdiction. Bargo v. State, 279 Ark. 180, 650 S.W.2d 227 (1983); Mitchell v. State, 233 Ark. 578, 346 S.W.2d 201 (1961). As a writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for attacking parole decisions, appellant could not prevail on appeal. For this reason, there is no good cause to appoint counsel or to continue with the appeal.\nMotion denied & appeal dismissed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Earnest L. BAKER v. LOCKHART, Director, Board of Pardons and Parole\n85-293\n702 S.W.2d 403\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1986\nAppellant, pro se.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 117,
  "last_page_order": 118
}