{
  "id": 9160885,
  "name": "Randolph George HICKS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hicks v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-20",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-482",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 Ark. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "921 S.W.2d 604"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "711 S.W.2d 162",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1875396,
        1875446
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0384-01",
        "/ark/289/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875446
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449594
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ark. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1447517
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/322/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "896 S.W.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1451185,
        1451155
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/320/0393-01",
        "/ark/320/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ark. 393",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1451185
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/320/0393-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3216811907049563e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9173880407699445
    },
    "sha256": "8495f0c623392903e58967af7cd8ce17f231d84e3e5ecd9d0dab9a3924aec559",
    "simhash": "1:381601b74c0f5d23",
    "word_count": 630
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:54.921906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DUDLEY, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Randolph George HICKS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant, Randolph George Hicks, by his attorneys, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorneys, Wayne Emmons of Hardy, Arkansas, and Edward Witt Chandler, who was admitted to practice in Arkansas by comity pursuant to Rule XIV of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, state by motion that they were notified by the Clerk of this court that the record could not be filed because the notice of appeal was filed late. Appellant\u2019s attorneys state by motion that they disagree that the notice of appeal was late.\nIn a Baxter County jury trial held on December 4 and 5, 1995, appellant, Randolph George Hicks, was convicted of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine, one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced consecutively on each count, resulting in a cumulative sentence of ninety-five years\u2019 imprisonment. Appellant\u2019s counsel filed a motion for new trial on December 11, 1995, but the motion was filed before the judgment and commitment order was entered on December 14, 1995. The motion for new trial was therefore untimely and ineffective. Webster v. State, 320 Ark. 393, 896 S.W.2d 890 (1995) (per curiam). Appellant\u2019s counsel amended the motion for new trial on December 20, 1995, asserting additional grounds for the motion. The amended motion related back to the date of filing of the original motion. Oliver v. State, 322 Ark. 8, 907 S.W.2d 706 (1995). The trial court did not rule on the motion for new trial. On January 19, 1996, appellant\u2019s counsel filed a notice of appeal from the judgment \u201centered against him on December 5, 1995.\u201d Although appellant\u2019s jury trial concluded on December 5, 1995, the judgment was not entered for purposes of appeal until it was filed of record with the Baxter County Circuit Clerk on December 14, 1995. Ark. R. App. P. 4(e) (1995). Because the motion for new trial was ineffective and because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the judgment was entered, the notice of appeal was also of no effect. Webster, 320 Ark. 393, 896 S.W.2d 890.\nBecause appellant\u2019s counsel have not admitted responsibility for filing the notice of appeal untimely, we deny appellant\u2019s motion. See In re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). This court has held that it will treat a motion for rule on the clerk as a motion for belated appeal and grant the motion when counsel admits that the notice of appeal was not timely filed due to an error on his part. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 321 Ark. 282, 900 S.W.2d 954 (1995) (per curiam). Here, the attorneys do not admit fault. Instead, they state by motion that they witnessed the prosecutor hand the judgment to the circuit clerk at the conclusion of the trial. We have held that a statement that it was someone else\u2019s fault or no one\u2019s fault will not suffice. Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986) (per curiam). Therefore, appellant\u2019s motion must be denied.\nAppellant\u2019s attorneys shall file within thirty days from the date of this per curiam a motion and affidavit in this case accepting foil responsibility for not timely filing the notice of appeal and upon filing same, or if other good cause is shown, the motion will be granted and a copy of the opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.\nThe present motion for rule on the clerk is denied.\nDUDLEY, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wayne Emmons and Chandler Law Firm, by: Edward Witt Chandler, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Randolph George HICKS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-482\n921 S.W.2d 604\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 20, 1996\nWayne Emmons and Chandler Law Firm, by: Edward Witt Chandler, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 474,
  "last_page_order": 476
}