{
  "id": 8722293,
  "name": "Earnest Lee WADE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wade v. State",
  "decision_date": "1986-03-31",
  "docket_number": "CR 79-19",
  "first_page": "473",
  "last_page": "474",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "288 Ark. 473"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "706 S.W.2d 392"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750168
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0129-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1525,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.892,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085432393934936
    },
    "sha256": "605157cd86b9c0352b86727d094ec1b54d5e44f133bd20a81879c3e4082d9e8a",
    "simhash": "1:e34a70a57f161ac4",
    "word_count": 256
  },
  "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 Lee WADE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nEarnest Lee Wade was convicted of second degree escape and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. He was declared a pauper, and Betty Dickey was appointed to represent him on appeal. After Dickey filed the appellant\u2019s brief, appellant Wade asked that she be relieved and that he be allowed to proceed pro se. We granted the motion.\nAppellant now asks permission to \u201csupplement\u201d the brief filed by Dickey. What he is actually requesting, however, is not to supplement the brief but rather to adopt counsel\u2019s brief but substitute his own argument on one point for the argument written by counsel. Appellant has attached to his motion the pro se brief he intends to file if this motion is granted. It does not conform to our rules.\nThe motion is denied. Appellant was appointed competent counsel. He chose to refuse her assistance by voluntarily electing to exercise his right to represent himself. We considered the brief filed by counsel to be withdrawn when counsel was relieved. Since the attorney\u2019s brief is no longer subject to consideration, appellant is responsible for filing a brief which conforms to our rules and which fully presents all his arguments for reversal. See Green v. State, 277 Ark. 129, 639 S.W.2d 512 (1982).\nMotion denied.\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 Lee WADE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 79-19\n706 S.W.2d 392\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 31, 1986\nAppellant, pro se.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0473-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 508
}