{
  "id": 298653,
  "name": "Larry KEMP v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kemp v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-12-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 97-932",
  "first_page": "757",
  "last_page": "758",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "330 Ark. 757"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "956 S.W.2d 860"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "591 F.2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        521615
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "habeas corpus held not available to a person subjected to a \"fine-only\" sentence"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/591/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 F.2d 1072",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2224328
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "habeas corpus petition filed while petitioner was in custody held not moot after his discharge from custody"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/432/1072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "852 F.2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10542586
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "coram nobis petition seeking return of fine held improper after custody had ceased"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/852/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "687 S.W.2d 849",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1877680,
        1877673
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0484-01",
        "/ark/285/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877680
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0484-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 2510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31329201046084154
    },
    "sha256": "a6967c9832e1b4a71fba98da3258a1fbae1d59382e6edbd43a2b56e3bdf594d8",
    "simhash": "1:5c68733605a17d9c",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:54.141445+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Larry KEMP v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nLarry Kemp was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mr. Kemp sought postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 which allows \u201c[a] petitioner in custody under a sentence of a circuit court\u201d to seek release from custody, a new trial, or modification of sentence upon a showing of one or more grounds listed in the Rule.\nMr. Kemp petitioned the Pope Circuit Court relief pursuant to the rule. The petition was denied. He has appealed from that decision. The State moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that, although Mr. Kemp\u2019s sentence included a fine, it did not include confinement so he is not a person \u201cin custody.\u201d The argument is that the Circuit Court was thus without jurisdiction to proceed pursuant to the Rule, and therefore, we lack jurisdiction as well.\nMr. Kemp\u2019s response concedes he has no right to relief under Rule 37.1 unless it can be found that he is in custody. He contends, however, that \u201cin custody\u201d as used in Rule 37.1 should include a person who has been sentenced to a fine. That is so, says Mr. Kemp, because such a person is subject to incarceration in the event the fine is not paid. It is argued further that our Rule is, as we said in Mason v. State, 285 Ark. 484, 687 S.W.2d 849 (1985), modeled upon federal habeas corpus laws in which, Mr. Kemp argues, the concept of \u201ccustody\u201d is expanded to include the situation in which a person has been fined.\nWhile we decline to hold that we lack jurisdiction in this matter in view of the State\u2019s failure to cite any law or case that says so, we dismiss the appeal because Mr. Kemp\u2019s argument with respect to whether he is in custody is without merit. In support of his argument Mr. Kemp cites U.S. v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199 (7th Cir. 1988) (coram nobis petition seeking return of fine held improper after custody had ceased), U.S. ex rel. Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1970) (habeas corpus petition filed while petitioner was in custody held not moot after his discharge from custody), and Hanson v. Circuit Court of First Judicial Circuit of Illinois, 591 F.2d 404 (7th Cir. 1979) (habeas corpus held not available to a person subjected to a \u201cfine-only\u201d sentence). None of the cases is in point here.\nThe appeal is dismissed because Mr. Kemp has failed to demonstrate that he is a person \u201cin custody\u201d as required by Rule 37.1.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Larry KEMP v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 97-932\n956 S.W.2d 860\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 11, 1997\nAppellant, pro se.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0757-01",
  "first_page_order": 795,
  "last_page_order": 796
}