{
  "id": 1365261,
  "name": "Kenneth Joel RUSHING v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rushing v. State",
  "decision_date": "2000-01-13",
  "docket_number": "CR 98-1312",
  "first_page": "84",
  "last_page": "87",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "340 Ark. 84"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "8 S.W.3d 489"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 19-4-1601",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-87-214",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-87-107",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-87-201",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "569 S.W. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 827",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672735
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0827-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 Ark. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1897030
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/311/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 U.S. 335",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1765333
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/372/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 Ark. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        243576
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/338/0277-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.823594220497451e-06,
      "percentile": 0.9990825719955102
    },
    "sha256": "c981e9a3801ca95e28a8a24b6745800252849e6c05814e60fd0625a8d11afaa8",
    "simhash": "1:a9323c52f56d55c2",
    "word_count": 883
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:11.293742+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kenneth Joel RUSHING v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "LAVENSKI R. SMITH, Justice.\nWe recently affirmed Kenneth Joel Rushing\u2019s conviction and life sentence for the first-degree murder of William Jack Allen. Rushing v. State, 338 Ark. 277, 992 S.W. 2d 789 (1999). Public defender Jim Pedigo of Miller County represented Rushing as trial counsel and subsequently as appellate counsel. Pedigo now motions this court for attorney\u2019s fees under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-6 for his work on Rushing\u2019s criminal appeal. Pedigo contends that he is entitled to attorney\u2019s fees under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-6 (c) despite his employment as a full-time public defender. Pedigo argues that his public-defender salary only compensated him for his trial work, not his appellate work. Fie takes the position that no prohibition exists to prevent his petitioning this court for attorney\u2019s fees for appellate work done for indigent clients during non-office hours. In response, the State argues that Rule 6-6(c) applies only to appointed counsel not otherwise paid, and that Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 16 requires all counsel to represent defendants through their direct appeal unless relieved. We agree with the State and deny Pedigo\u2019s motion for attorney\u2019s fees.\nFacts\nPedigo has been a salaried, full-time public defender since January 1, 1998. Pedigo states in his brief that he prepared Rushing\u2019s appeal in forty-four hours during weekends and evenings. He indicates that he did so because regular office hours were inadequate due to the heavy caseload in the 8th Judicial District public defender\u2019s office. He also asserts the Director of the Public Defenders Commission told him that he was to obtain compensation for appellate work from the appellate court. He provides no evidence of this comment. He does attach to his motion a letter from Didi Sailings, Executive Director of the Public Defender Commission, in which Sailings tells Pedigo that he is responsible for representing his client at all stages of proceedings. Sailings also told Pedigo that it was Commission policy that public defenders not seek compensation from the appellate courts. He asserts that the public-defender statutes provide only for compensation for work done at the trial level. Therefore, he contends he is entitled to payment under Rule 6-6(c) for work on Rushing\u2019s appeal.\nStatutory Provisions\nThe Constitution of the United States and the Arkansas Constitution require appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); State v. Post, 311 Ark. 510, 845 S.W.2d 487 (1993). Arkansas has accomplished this by appointment of private counsel compensated with public funds and through full- or part-time public defenders. Mears, County Judge v. Hall, 263 Ark. 827, 569 S.W. 91 (1978). The legislature created the State\u2019s current public-defender system with Act 1193 of 1993. This Act, which is codified in Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-87-201- \u2014 16-87-216 (Supp. 1999), governs Pedigo\u2019s employment. Public-defender salaries, including Pedigo\u2019s, are set by the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-87-107 (Repl. 1987). Public defenders are prohibited from receiving \u201cany funds, services or other thing of monetary value, directly, or indirectly, for the representation of an indigent person pursuant to court appointment, except the compensation provided by law.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-87-214. The legislature in its enactment of the appropriation of funds for the Public Defender Commission expressly subjected the Commission to the Regular Salary Procedures and Restrictions Act. See Act 1379 of 1999, \u00a7 1; Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 19-4-1601 \u2014 1615. As applied to a state-salaried public defender, this Act, in essence, prohibits the public defender from receiving compensation from the State in an amount greater than that established by the General Assembly as the maximum annual salary for the employee.\nSupreme Court Rules\nArk. Sup. Ct. R. 6-6(c) states in pertinent part: \u201cAll motions for attorney\u2019s fees from attorneys appointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases shall contain....\u201d Rule 6-6(c), by its terms, applies to attorneys \u201cappointed to represent indigent appellants in criminal cases....\u201d While it might appear that this could include salaried public defenders appointed to represent indigent appellants, we hold it does not. When considered with the relevant public-defender statutes, it is evident that the reference to appointed counsel in Rule 6-6 (c) is to attorneys not otherwise compensated for their representation. In the instant case, the Miller County Circuit Court appointed Pedigo to represent defendant Rushing. At the time of his appointment and at all times since, Pedigo received compensation from the State of Arkansas as a full-time public defender. Once Pedigo undertook representation of Rushing as trial counsel, he was obligated to continue that representation \u201cthroughout any appeal to Arkansas Supreme Court, unless permitted by the trial court or the Arkansas Supreme Court to withdraw....\u201d Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 16. In that he remained a salaried, full-time public defender during the appeal, he is not entitled to receive any additional compensation from the State for his services.\nMotion denied.\nSee Ark. Code. Ann \u00a7 16-87-306 listing duties of public defenders. This statute however, does not exempt public defenders from the requirements of Ark. R. App. P. -Crim. 16.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LAVENSKI R. SMITH, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jim Pedigo, Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kenneth Joel RUSHING v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 98-1312\n8 S.W.3d 489\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 13, 2000\nJim Pedigo, Public Defender, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0084-01",
  "first_page_order": 112,
  "last_page_order": 115
}