{
  "id": 1240930,
  "name": "James Wesley BILYEU v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bilyeu v. State",
  "decision_date": "1999-04-15",
  "docket_number": "CR 98-1480",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "337 Ark. 304"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "987 S.W.2d 277"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 735",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910542
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0735-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873696
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 954",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668953
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0954-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895736
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0362-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2454,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.189801819849291e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5093910880518516
    },
    "sha256": "3b98e3155c6e15a806d332d7e5a89e03c8f265d8fc74fd001813ebc6a4c6b1d0",
    "simhash": "1:894c06c74fc446d4",
    "word_count": 415
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:43.806602+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Wesley BILYEU v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nJames Wesley Bilyeu was found guilty in 1996 of second-degree murder and sentenced to thirty years\u2019 imprisonment. A fine of $15,000 was also imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Bilyeu v. State, CACR 97-505 (February 4, 1998).\nBilyeu subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied without a hearing, and the appeal of that order has been lodged here. The appellee now seeks by motion to remand the matter to the trial court for written findings of fact. The appellant agrees that written findings should have been entered but contends that any order from this court should also include instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing.\nThe order entered in the trial court was devoid of the written findings required by Rule 37.3(a). The order in its entirety reads:\nNow on this 26th day of May, 98, the court upon consideration of the petition for postconviction relief filed herein by the defendant should be and hereby is denied and dismissed.\nWhile we have affirmed the denial of Rule 37 petitions notwithstanding the trial court\u2019s failure to make written findings as required by Rule 37.3(a), we have done so only where it can be determined from the record that the petition is wholly without merit or where the allegations in the petition are such that it is conclusive on the face of the petition that no relief is warranted. Long v. State, 294 Ark. 362, 742 S.W.2d 942 (1988), citing Rawls v. State, 264 Ark. 954, 581 S.W.2d 311 (1979); Smith v. State, 290 Ark. 90, 717 S.W.2d 193 (1986). Here, there are allegations contained in the petition for postconviction relief which are supported by assertions of fact which preclude summary dismissal of the petition. Accordingly, we grant the appellee\u2019s motion to remand the matter to the trial court for written findings. We leave the decision of whether the allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing to the trial court which has discretion pursuant to Rule 37.3(a) to decide whether the files or records are sufficient to sustain the court\u2019s findings without a hearing. See LunaHolbird v. State, 315 Ark. 735, 871 S.W.2d 328 (1994).\nMotion granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Mark Prior, Att\u2019y Gen., by: O. Milton Fine II, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Wesley BILYEU v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 98-1480\n987 S.W.2d 277\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 15, 1999\nQ. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellant.\nMark Prior, Att\u2019y Gen., by: O. Milton Fine II, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 328,
  "last_page_order": 329
}