{
  "id": 1898907,
  "name": "Howard Edward CHISM v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chism v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-07-20",
  "docket_number": "CR 92-569",
  "first_page": "378",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "310 Ark. 378"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "834 S.W.2d 155"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 103,
    "char_count": 967,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.862,
    "sha256": "bd71d61d6fe9de8d8bba2b6935221c0dca2b33a55f2585d403bc2f4f2fd59dac",
    "simhash": "1:4241c9775a450ae8",
    "word_count": 176
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:16.191716+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Howard Edward CHISM v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": ".\nPer Curiam.\nThe appellant, Harold Edward Chism, filed a motion in this court for a Rule on the Clerk. It was denied because he gave his notice of appeal before the trial court ruled on his motion for a new trial. Rule 4 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, in part: \u201cA notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any motion. . .shall have no effect.\u201d He now files a motion for a belated appeal, but does not state a valid ground for a belated appeal. Thus we deny the motion.\nIt is an attorney\u2019s duty to give a timely notice of appeal. If the attorney for Harold Edward Chism will concede by affidavit that it was his fault that the notice was not timely given the motion will be granted. See per curiam issued February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Denny Hyslip, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Howard Edward CHISM v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 92-569\n834 S.W.2d 155\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 20, 1992\nDenny Hyslip, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0378-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 418
}