{
  "id": 922753,
  "name": "Derrick MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-02-10",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-1492",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "287",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 Ark. 285"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "938 S.W.2d 814"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719992
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "386 U.S. 738",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6182629
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/386/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 Ark. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1445718
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/323/0116-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 2859,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.745,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3400054454819927e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6309429623117023
    },
    "sha256": "7fa9bd1c650241fbdaa825d7234b837846262148fa6781e721072814b2a713a2",
    "simhash": "1:deb4622cc9466eb4",
    "word_count": 504
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:41.435320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Derrick MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn 1995, Derrick Mitchell was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree, battery in the first degree, and aggravated assault. An aggregate sentence of sixty-six years\u2019 imprisonment was imposed. We affirmed. Mitchell v. State, 323 Ark. 116, 913 S.W.2d 264 (1996).\nMr. Mitchell filed in the trial court a pro se petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37, challenging the judgments. The trial court denied the petition, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Appellant Mitchell\u2019s court-appointed counsel now seeks to be relieved as counsel on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. He further seeks an extension of time if the motion to be relieved is denied.\nThe motion to be relieved is denied because it does not comport with proper procedure. Rule 4 \u2014 3(j) (1) provides in pertinent part:\nA request to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit shall be accompanied by a brief including an abstract. The brief shall contain an argument section that consists of a list of all rulings adverse to the defendant made by the trial court on all objections, motions and requests made by either party with an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.\nArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(2).\nThe motion filed by counsel has attached to it a copy of the petition filed in the trial court and a \u201cMemorandum of Law.\u201d No brief containing an abstract and argument in accordance with Rule 4-3 (j) (1) was filed with the motion.\nCounsel in the motion to be relieved and the State in its response to the motion both urge that the appeal should be dismissed because the Rule 37 petition was not timely filed. There is, however, no abstract before us from which it can be determined if the petition was timely filed. The procedure set out in Rule 4-3(j) (1) is intended to avoid precisely the situation which arises from counsel\u2019s motion. Without an adequate brief which contains an abstract of the record, we cannot make a reasoned decision on whether counsel is entitled to be relieved on the ground that the appeal is without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Campbell v. State, 288 Ark. 309, 705 S.W.2d 422 (1986).\nThe motion for extension of time is granted, and counsel is directed to file a brief which complies with Rule 4-30(1). When the brief is filed, the motion and brief will be forwarded by the Clerk to the appellant so that he may raise within thirty days any points he chooses in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-30(2).\nMotion to be relieved denied; motion for extension of time granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Rife, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Derrick MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-1492\n938 S.W.2d 814\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 10, 1997\nJohn W. Rife, Public Defender, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 315
}