{
  "id": 1898833,
  "name": "Lloyd EVANS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-09-14",
  "docket_number": "CR 92-201",
  "first_page": "397",
  "last_page": "398",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "310 Ark. 397"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "836 S.W.2d 384"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871365
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872616
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904334
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906064
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-501",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2344,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.917,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2038046007649374e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5942993201534144
    },
    "sha256": "70c9f9d2ab394545a978c2baaf85f42ff86c6c730d332d80c31932f5f29ce64e",
    "simhash": "1:a30d0c36662e4350",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:16.191716+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lloyd EVANS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThe state originally charged appellant with rape, and two months prior to trial, amended its information to allege appellant a habitual offender under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-501(b) (1987). Appellant was found guilty of rape, and at a subsequent hearing on whether appellant\u2019s sentence should be enhanced, the jury sentenced him to 100 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant argues that (1) he had not been properly charged as a habitual offender and (2) one of the convictions used by the state for enhancement purposes was pending on appeal and thus should not have been considered by the jury in its sentencing deliberations.\nRegarding appellant\u2019s first argument, the record clearly reflects the appellee amended its information to allege appellant had been convicted or found guilty of four or more felonies, but his main contention seems to be that he had never been notified of the habitual offender charge. In reviewing the abstract, we conclude appellant raises this point for the first time on appeal; therefore, we will not address it. Terry v. State, 309 Ark. 64, 826 S.W.2d 817 (1992); Porter v. State, 308 Ark. 137, 823 S.W.2d 846 (1992). In fact, when the state offered certified copies of appellant\u2019s prior convictions, appellant\u2019s counsel acknowledged he knew of \u201cno objections for the purposes of [their] being introduced.\u201d\nWe reach the same conclusion concerning appellant\u2019s second issue on appeal because he never presented that argument below. On appeal, the state responds to appellant\u2019s argument by citing Birchett v. State, 291 Ark. 379, 724 S.W.2d 492 (1987), where we held that prior convictions on appeal are properly admitted for the purposes of sentence enhancement. See also Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731 S.W.2d 179 (1987). Again, because appellant never objected to the introduction of his prior conviction which was pending on appeal, it is unnecessary to discuss the aforementioned principle of law, announced in Birchett and Halfacre, or to apply it to the facts presented here.\nWe affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Cortinez Law Firm, P.A., by: Robert R. Cortinez, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lloyd EVANS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 92-201\n836 S.W.2d 384\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 14, 1992\nThe Cortinez Law Firm, P.A., by: Robert R. Cortinez, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0397-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 438
}