{ "id": 1886909, "name": "Anthony STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Stewart v. State", "decision_date": "1989-10-16", "docket_number": "CR 89-97", "first_page": "147", "last_page": "150", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "300 Ark. 147" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "777 S.W.2d 844" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "565 S.W.2d 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1672730, 1672620 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0432-01", "/ark/263/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ark. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1672730 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 Ark. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1672621 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/263/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "640 S.W.2d 442", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1750169, 1750236 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0213-01", "/ark/277/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 Ark. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1750169 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/277/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 F.2d 489", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1396200 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/615/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "480 F. Supp. 529", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 5760625 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/480/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ark. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1715261 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/268/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-504", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 5-4-501", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 Ark. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1895718 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/294/0209-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 383, "char_count": 5978, "ocr_confidence": 0.878, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6504406497438665e-07, "percentile": 0.6926689548309574 }, "sha256": "6fd84e43beac4c1e1db43f71a61533c7288ed1f38d74dc5e26a08ce1fd655ba0", "simhash": "1:942d6076030fbeaa", "word_count": 959 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:13.062447+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Anthony STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Anthony Stewart, was found guilty of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender with four prior convictions to fifty years imprisonment. For reversal, he contends that there was insufficient evidence from which to adjudge him an habitual offender in that the State did not prove he was represented by an attorney for each of the prior convictions. We disagree and affirm.\nThe State has the burden of proving a defendant\u2019s prior convictions. Allen v. State, 294 Ark. 209, 742 S.W.2d 886 (1988).\nFor the purpose of sentence enhancement pursuant to our habitual offender code provisions [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 5-4-501 \u2014 5-4-504 (1987)], the State may prove a prior conviction by any evidence that satisfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was convicted or found guilty. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-504(a) (1987); Elmore v. State, 268 Ark. 225, 595 S.W.2d 218 (1980). On appeal, the test is whether there is substantial evidence that the appellant was previously convicted of the felonies in questions. Allen, supra. See also Elmore, supra.\nUnless the records of prior convictions show that the defendant was represented by counsel, there is a presumption that the defendant was denied assistance of counsel, and the convictions cannot be used to enhance punishment under our habitual offender provisions. Reeves v. Mabry, 480 F. Supp. 529 (W.D. Ark. 1979), aff'd 615 F.2d 489 (8th Cir. 1980). See also Knight v. State, 277 Ark. 213, 640 S.W.2d 442 (1982).\nIn Reeves v. Mabry, supra, the circuit clerk testified from the records that the appellant conferred with attorney Martin Green. The docket sheet in the previous case was admitted into evidence, which indicated that the court would not accept appellant\u2019s guilty plea until he had conferred with Martin Green; that Martin Green did confer with appellant; and that after the conference, the court accepted the pleas.\nThe court stated, \u201cAlthough the word \u2018appointment\u2019 is not used in the docket entry, it is clear that the Court, in asking Martin Green to confer with Reeves [appellant] and Riley Cunningham, was appointing Martin Green as their counsel.\u201d The court then held that the testimony of the circuit clerk and the docket sheet showed that appellant was represented by counsel.\nLikewise, in the case at bar, docket sheets, as well as other documents, show that Stewart was represented by counsel. In enhancing Stewart\u2019s sentence under our habitual offender provisions, the trial court considered the records of the Arkansas Department of Correction (the proverbial \u201cpen pack\u201d) and certified documents from the Circuit Clerk of Woodruff County. These records and documents, admitted into evidence as State\u2019s Exhibit No. 2, included docket sheets, a plea statement, judgments, an admission summary, and transcriptions of Stewart\u2019s plea and arraignment proceedings, all in reference to appellant\u2019s four convictions in Woodruff Circuit Court (case numbers: CR-80-47, CR-80-54, CR-80-55, and CR-80-56).\nThe docket sheets for all four cases reflect that the attorneys were \u201cGene Raff\u201d for the State of Arkansas and \u201cT.B. Fitzhugh Appt.\u201d for Anthony Stewart. Further examination of the docket sheets indicates that plea and arraignment was held on July 24, 1980. A certified copy of these proceedings reflects that a Mr. Fitzhugh appeared as defense counsel in regard to all four charges and requested a continuance in the cases since he had been recently appointed.\nOn August 18,1980, Stewart pleaded guilty to all charges. Accompanying the pleas of guilty was a plea statement executed by Stewart and by \u201cBay Fitzhugh,\u201d attorney. Subsequent to sentencing, Stewart was placed in the custody of the Department of Correction. The Department\u2019s admission summary shows that Stewart was represented by T. Fitzhugh in all four cases. Obviously, T.B., Bay, and T. Fitzhugh are the same person.\nGranted, the certified copies of the court\u2019s judgments in these cases do not mention Fitzhugh, nor do they reflect whether or not Stewart was represented by counsel or if he validly waived that right. However, the docket entries, records of the proceedings, plea statement, and admission summary indicate that Stewart was represented by counsel. Accordingly, we have no trouble in concluding that there is substantial evidence that appellant had the benefit of counsel and was previously convicted of the felonies in question. Allen, supra.\nAffirmed.\nAttention is directed to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9, which provides in pertinent part that \u201c[t]he appellant\u2019s abstract or abridgment of the records should consist of an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis, of only such material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to this court for decision.\u201d Appellant\u2019s abstract is deficient in that he failed to abstract State\u2019s Exhibit No. 2 in his brief. After the appellee pointed out this deficiency pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(1), appellant abstracted documents contained in State\u2019s Exhibit No. 2 in his reply brief. It is improper for an appellant to attempt to correct an abstracting deficiency in his reply brief as the appellee at that late date does not have the opportunity to supply any deficiencies in the appellant\u2019s abstract. Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W.2d 31 (1978). See also Merrit v. Merrit, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W.2d 603 (1978). We further note that appellant did not abstract all of the documents contained in Exhibit No. 2. Copies of the plea statement and the admission summary are missing.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Didi H. Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Anthony STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-97\n777 S.W.2d 844\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 16, 1989\n[Rehearing denied November 13, 1989.]\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Didi H. Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0147-01", "first_page_order": 175, "last_page_order": 178 }