{
  "id": 1365176,
  "name": "William D. TAYLOR, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. State",
  "decision_date": "2000-03-16",
  "docket_number": "CR 99-1471",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "655",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "340 Ark. 654"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "12 S.W.3d 238"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922593
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 Ark. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1655452
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/334/0339-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1675,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.051386393569663714
    },
    "sha256": "153a137a146aa23f9738b4d22c3c4df70ad63935a8305697fb339b3c90ef33fc",
    "simhash": "1:120656bc82e83ac8",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:11.293742+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William D. TAYLOR, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis is a Rule 37 appeal. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. Appellant William D. Taylor, Sr., moves the court to supplement the record of the Rule 37 proceedings with the record prepared for appeal from the original judgment of conviction in case No. 97-01240. See Taylor v. State, 334 Ark. 339, 974 S.W.2d 454 (1998).\nThe motion is denied. It is not necessary to consolidate the Rule 37 record with the record of the original trial, because the record of the original trial is already on file with this court. See Dryman v. State, 327 Ark. 375, 938 S.W.2d 825 (1997). It is necessary, though, for the appellant in a Rule 37 appeal to abstract the material portions of the trial record. Id.\nWe note that the record in the Rule 37 appeal was lodged on December 16, 1999, and that appellant has been granted three extensions of time in which to file his brief. The first extension was granted on January 24, 2000, based on the heavy trial schedule of appellant\u2019s counsel. The second extension was granted on February 22, 2000, based on an assertion that appellant\u2019s counsel\u2019s computer had \u201ccrashed\u201d and that he had lost the abstract. The third extension was granted March 8, 2000, also based on the computer crash, with the deadline for the brief set for March 23, 2000. This means that appellant\u2019s brief will be filed more than three months after the record was lodged in this appeal. There will be no more extensions for filing the appellant\u2019s brief granted in this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hurst Law Offices, by; Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William D. TAYLOR, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 99-1471\n12 S.W.3d 238\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 16, 2000\nHurst Law Offices, by; Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 692,
  "last_page_order": 693
}