{
  "id": 1888407,
  "name": "Clifton STANTON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stanton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-05-30",
  "docket_number": "CR 88-199",
  "first_page": "54",
  "last_page": "55",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "299 Ark. 54"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "770 S.W.2d 147"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891464
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889870
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0396-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1131,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.905,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06919708446322546
    },
    "sha256": "c1e86c01827a62f6b19c29289a7ac1ebdf0a292f9fdf6ec387da6c4995d39f94",
    "simhash": "1:01de95260e0e6b6a",
    "word_count": 186
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:40.326030+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clifton STANTON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "T\u00f3m Glaze, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from the trial court\u2019s denial of the appellant\u2019s petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant Clifton Stanton was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction, but he filed a timely Rule 37 petition alleging among other things ineffective assistance of counsel.\nThe appellant failed to abstract the court\u2019s order denying his Rule 37 petition, and the state did not provide a supplemental abstract. This court has held that the judgment or decree appealed from is ordinarily an essential component of the abstract. Brown v. State, 298 Ark. 396, 767 S.W.2d 313 (1989); Davis v. Wingfield, 297 Ark. 57, 759 S.W.2d 219 (1988). Because the appellant has failed to abstract the trial court\u2019s order, we affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(1).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "T\u00f3m Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Terry Crabtree, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: DavidB. Eberhard, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clifton STANTON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 88-199\n770 S.W.2d 147\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 30, 1989\nTerry Crabtree, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: DavidB. Eberhard, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0054-01",
  "first_page_order": 78,
  "last_page_order": 79
}