{
  "id": 50258,
  "name": "Damond SANFORD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sanford v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-04-07",
  "docket_number": "CR 96-908",
  "first_page": "104",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "328 Ark. 104"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "940 S.W.2d 497"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "939 S.W.2d 310",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        922569,
        922735
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0677-01",
        "/ark/327/0678-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922735
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0678-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12021902
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12020582
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2048,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.757,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.74821408506828
    },
    "sha256": "7efabec4dd04ab6e230da1589b78e0c8850ceffbc088b1dc61e2e762529798c5",
    "simhash": "1:0ecb789dc4e7985b",
    "word_count": 354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:32.867281+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Damond SANFORD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe procedural background in this matter is set forth in our per curiam opinion delivered on March 17, 1997. Sanford v. State, 327 Ark. 678, 939 S.W.2d 310 (1997). Attorney William M. Howard, Jr., counsel for appellant Damond Sanford, was ordered to appear before this court on March 31, 1997, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to file Sanford\u2019s brief in a timely manner.\nMr. Howard appeared on March 31, 1997, entered a plea of guilty to the contempt citation, and accepted full responsibility for fading to file Sanford\u2019s brief in a timely manner. In mitigation, he stated that he had been troubled with hypertension and headaches, and that he had been affected by the death of a close friend. Mr. Howard apologized for his inaction, and assured this court that Sanford\u2019s brief would be ready for filing within ten days.\nBased on the foregoing, we hold that Mr. Howard is in contempt for failing to file Sanford\u2019s brief in a timely manner. We fine him $250.00, and will allow him ten days from the date of this opinion to file a belated brief in this matter. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.\nGlaze, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\nconcurring. Appellant Damond Sanford\u2019s attorney is about four months past his final extension date for filing Damond\u2019s brief in this cause. Considering the ten days granted by today\u2019s per curiam, counsel has received a total of 214 days to file his brief. I join in granting Sanford another extension, but write to continue to point out this court\u2019s unfair treatment of the State in the same situations and requests. One day, hopefully, we will overrule State v. Tien, 326 Ark. 71, 929 S.W.2d 155 (1996), which requires this court\u2019s dismissal of the State\u2019s case in these situations. See also State v. Bowden, 326 Ark. 266, 931 S.W.2d 104 (1996).",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Damond SANFORD v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 96-908\n940 S.W.2d 497\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 7, 1997\nWilliam M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0104-01",
  "first_page_order": 130,
  "last_page_order": 131
}