{
  "id": 1875322,
  "name": "Steven Robert ROGERS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers v. State",
  "decision_date": "1986-06-16",
  "docket_number": "CR 85-199",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "258",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "289 Ark. 257"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "711 S.W.2d 461"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718140
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 781",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709251
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0781-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 Ark. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869274
      ],
      "year": 1859,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/20/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S.W. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1886,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888752
      ],
      "year": 1886,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S.W. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ark. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720649
      ],
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/50/0113-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 1966,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.886,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.177748278810669e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5878948927138223
    },
    "sha256": "5e8aba8c5436ab2f34d0635c54be8cfec13fc65c83dc7018f5a82ec76d2af2d4",
    "simhash": "1:d2cc142cee439661",
    "word_count": 329
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:34.211418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Steven Robert ROGERS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Steele Hays, Justice.\nSteven Robert Rogers was found guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of kidnapping. Pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001, the court instructed the jury that Rogers had been convicted of three prior felonies and the jury fixed tjie sentences at twenty years on each count, which the court ordered to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgment.\nAppellant first contends the convictions are void because the Information failed to comply with Article 7, Section 49 of our Constitution, which provides that the \u201c[i]ndictments shall conclude: \u2018Against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas\u2019.\u201d This information does conclude with the appropriate language, but, as appellant points out, several of our cases have held that the language must follow each count, which was not done here. Hall v. Lackmond, 50 Ark. 113, 6 S.W. 510 (1887); Williams v. State, 47 Ark. 230, 1 S.W. 149 (1886); State v. Hazle, 20 Ark. 156, (1859). However, this objection was not presented to the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).\nThe two remaining arguments are: the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of a certified copy of a docket sheet to prove one of appellant\u2019s prior felony convictions and counsel\u2019s failure to object to the introduction of the docket sheet constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.\nThese arguments, like the first, are also subject to summary denial. There was no objection to the introduction of the docket sheet and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised initially by appeal. Sumlin v. State, 273 Ark. 185, 617 S.W.2d 372 (1981).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Steele Hays, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wood Law Firm, by: Steven R. Davis, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Steven Robert ROGERS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 85-199\n711 S.W.2d 461\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 16, 1986\nWood Law Firm, by: Steven R. Davis, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}