{
  "id": 369181,
  "name": "Robert Lee DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-06-10",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-1168",
  "first_page": "36",
  "last_page": "38",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "325 Ark. 36"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "924 S.W.2d 452"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907819
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0219-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455816
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ark. 709",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453562
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/319/0709-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2451,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1346377406354015e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5770054547581731
    },
    "sha256": "4126df4ff091ee96f77b7869bfa29cad9fdfe894cc739edbe460fdc5508f0e06",
    "simhash": "1:0b40403cb6fefc33",
    "word_count": 414
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:21.718216+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DUDLEY, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Lee DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nRobert Lee Davis was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. He was sentenced to 33 years\u2019 imprisonment. His sole point on appeal is that he was denied a speedy trial in violation of Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1. We must affirm the conviction as Mr. Davis\u2019s abstract of the record is flagrantly deficient.\nMr. Davis\u2019s abstract shows he was arrested January 13, 1993, and admitted to bail the following day. He was tried on May 24, 1995, which was obviously more than the time permitted by Rule 28.1 for bringing him to trial. We have, however, no way of knowing if the Trial Court properly found that a sufficient number of days were excluded from that time in accordance with Rule 28.3.\nAlthough the abstract indicates Mr. Davis moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial on March 14, 1995, the substance of the motion is not abstracted. The Trial Court\u2019s ruling on the motion is not abstracted. The abstract indicates that there were motions for continuances by Mr. Davis, which apparently were granted. Neither the grounds asserted for the continuances nor the Trial Court\u2019s orders in response to those motions are abstracted.\nApparendy a hearing was held on September 12, 1994, concerning the speedy-trial motion. The hearing has not been abstracted. The abstract refers to a motion for reconsideration, apparendy of an order denying the motion to dismiss, but the substance of the motion is not abstracted. The abstract does not contain the Trial Court\u2019s ruling on the motion. The abstract does not contain the jury verdict, the judgment and commitment order, or Mr. Davis\u2019s notice of appeal.\nWith only one record on appeal and seven justices, it is essential that the material parts of the record be abstracted. Coney v. State, 319 Ark. 709, 894 S.W.2d 583 (1995). See, e.g., Franklin v. State, 318 Ark. 99, 884 S.W.2d 246 (1994); Britton v. State, 316 Ark. 219, 870 S.W.2d 762 (1994). When an abstract is so deficient that we cannot discern what happened in the Trial Court, we must affirm. Franklin v. State, supra.\nAffirmed.\nDUDLEY, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heather Patrice Hogobrooks, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Lee DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-1168\n924 S.W.2d 452\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 10, 1996\n[Petition for rehearing denied July 1, 1996.]\nHeather Patrice Hogobrooks, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.\nDudley, J., not participating."
  },
  "file_name": "0036-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 62
}