{
  "id": 369147,
  "name": "Everett L. KING v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "King v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-07-08",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-165",
  "first_page": "313",
  "last_page": "315",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "325 Ark. 313"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "925 S.W.2d 159"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907732
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914618
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ark. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1451276
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/320/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 553",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907779
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0553-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "920 S.W.2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9160131
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/324/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 Ark. 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        9160025
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/324/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ark. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1447564
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/322/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ark. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1447466
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/322/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912757
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 3429,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.04200058149282e-07,
      "percentile": 0.85532824500579
    },
    "sha256": "86ccc465a66f1202d57052a790a67a61b9fa4a319e6d774382585b92bb8bf641",
    "simhash": "1:b22934147b28d2bc",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "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": [
      "Everett L. KING v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ANDREE Layton Roaf, Justice.\nEverett L. King was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to 36 years imprisonment. This court previously affirmed that conviction on direct appeal. King v. State, 314 Ark. 205, 862 S.W.2d 229 (1993). However, we reversed the denial of King\u2019s subsequent Rule 37 petition challenging his sentence. We held that the trial court erred in allowing King\u2019s former counsel to remain in the courtroom throughout the Rule 37 hearing after King had invoked A.R.E. Rule 615; King had alleged numerous ineffective assistance of counsel claims. We specifically stated that King was entitled to a new Rule 37 hearing. King v. State, 322 Ark. 51, 907 S.W.2d 127 (1995). On remand, the trial court again denied King\u2019s petition. King appeals from this second denial of his Rule 37 petition.\nKing argues on appeal that: (1) the trial court erred by entering the order summarily denying his petition without conducting a new Rule 37 hearing as directed by this court; (2) the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter this order because he was outside of Washington County when he prepared the order; and (3) the criminal justice coordinator erred in refusing to permit King\u2019s request for a writ of mandamus to be considered by this court. We hold that King\u2019s abstract is flagrantly deficient in violation of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 (a) (6), and we affirm.\nThe following is a verbatim reproduction of the abstract submitted by King\u2019s counsel:\nMANDATE\n(Tr. 3)\nSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS OPINION\n(Tr. 4-9)\nCERTIFICATION OF CLERK\n(Tr. 10)\nTRIAL COURT ORDER\n(Tr. 11-12)\nLETTER FROM SUPREME COURT COORDINATOR DENYING PETITIONER\u2019S REQUEST FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n(Tr. 13)\nNOTICE OF APPEAL AND DESIGNATION OF RECORD\n(Tr. 14)\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n(Tr. 15)\nCERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER\n(Tr. 16)\nCERTIFICATE OF CIRCUIT CLERK\n(Tr. 17)\nWe have often held that a summary of the pleadings and the judgment appealed from are the bare essentials of an abstract. D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher, 322 Ark. 437, 909 S.W.2d 640 (1995). This court does not presume error simply because an appeal is made. Mayo v. State, 324 Ark. 322, 920 S.W.2d 843 (1996). It is the appellant\u2019s burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. Midgett v. State, 316 Ark. 553, 873 S.W.2d 165 (1994). The reason underlying our abstracting rule is basic \u2014 there is only one transcript, there are seven judges on this court, and it is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine the one transcript. Bunn v. State, 320 Ark. 516, 898 S.W.2d 450 (1995). We will not explore the record for prejudicial error, except in death or life-imprisonment cases where a motion, objection, or request on the point at issue was made before the trial judge. Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304, 854 S.W.2d 332 (1993).\nKing\u2019s failure to abstract the order appealed from and other critical documents precludes this court from considering issues concerning them Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 872 S.W.2d 400 (1994).\nAffirmed.\nDudley, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ANDREE Layton Roaf, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John R. Hudson, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Everett L. KING v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-165\n925 S.W.2d 159\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 8, 1996\nJohn R. Hudson, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0313-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 339
}