{
  "id": 1895792,
  "name": "Henry Leroy TIPPITT v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tippitt v. State",
  "decision_date": "1988-01-25",
  "docket_number": "CR 87-152",
  "first_page": "342",
  "last_page": "344",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "294 Ark. 342"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "742 S.W.2d 931"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872615
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0393-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 Ark. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869762
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/293/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-12-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872597
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1879963
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 U.S. 128",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11329017
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/439/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 3631,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.921,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.520387660202889e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6691807128523709
    },
    "sha256": "e9f76ffd7429be24fdac20d2124503a6dbe8e3086c52cd9fd49f926c1bafa676",
    "simhash": "1:6a13a9dd489c3d14",
    "word_count": 622
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:12:05.889486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry Leroy TIPPITT v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe appellant, Henry Leroy Tippitt, was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to 40 years imprisonment. Tippitt raises four meritless points for reversal.\nThe conviction arose from the robbery of Monty Cazer, who was hitchhiking on the interstate in Little Rock. Cazer\u2019s car had run out of gas. Tippitt stopped and offered Cazer a lift; Cazer testified that Tippitt asked him for some money, stating that he \u201cdidn\u2019t give free rides.\u201d Three other men were also in the vehicle. The evidence most favorable to the state was that Tippitt pulled a knife on Cazer, beat him and robbed him of $95 and a wrist watch.\nFirst, Tippitt argues that the search of the vehicle, made shortly after the robbery, was unconstitutional. After he was robbed, Cazer hailed a policeman, and while he and the officer were enroute to Cazer\u2019s vehicle, Cazer spotted the vehicle Tippitt had driven during the robbery. The police officer stopped that vehicle. Two of the men who were present during the robbery were still in the vehicle. Tippitt was not. The vehicle was owned by Pam Sublett, not Tippitt. Because Tippitt had no standing to question the search, we find no merit in the argument. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).\nThe second argument is the trial judge erred in refusing to allow as evidence the written statement of Mark Allen Murphey, one of the four men in the car. Although the state issued a subpoena for Murphey, it was not served. Murphey was charged with robbery at the time he gave the statement, but the charges were later dropped. In his statement to the police, Murphey said that he did not see Tippitt with a knife. The judge found that Murphey was unavailable, but his statement was not trustworthy.\nUnder Unif. R. Evid. 804(5), such a statement must have \u201ccircumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to those supporting the common-law exceptions.\u201d Hill v. Brown, 283 Ark. 185, 672 S.W.2d 330 (1984). The statement made when Murphey was facing criminal charges could have been self-serving. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing the admission of the statement. Marx v. State, 291 Ark. 325, 724 S.W.2d 456 (1987).\nTippitt also argues that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 (2) (a) (Supp. 1985) [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-12-103 (1987)], the habitual offender statute. Tippitt contends that the aggravated robbery statute has its own enhancement provisions and that he should not have been sentenced pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 but under \u00a7 41-2102(3). In Mayfield v. State, 293 Ark. 216, 736 S.W.2d 12 (1987), we held aggravated robbery is simply a Class Y felony and subsection 3 was repealed by \u00a7 13 of Act 620 of 1981. The judge instructed the jury it could sentence the appellant to a term of not less than forty years nor more than life pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 (2) (a), which was proper, and Tippitt\u2019s sentence was not illegal.\nFinally, Tippitt argues that although he had counsel for each of his four prior convictions, he was not advised of the \u201cenormity of further consequences if he again faced trial.\u201d In other words, counsel did not tell him if he kept breaking the law he would receive stiffer sentences. The law places no such burden on counsel. See Brown v. State, 291 Ark. 393, 725 S.W.2d 544 (1987).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. B. Brady, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry Leroy TIPPITT v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-152\n742 S.W.2d 931\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 25, 1988\nWm. B. Brady, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0342-01",
  "first_page_order": 382,
  "last_page_order": 384
}