{
  "id": 1257728,
  "name": "Dewayne GLASS; Avenell Scott; Ray Albert Hussey; Jason Jordan v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glass v. State",
  "decision_date": "2000-05-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 00-454; CR 00-455; CR 00-457; CR 00-459",
  "first_page": "300",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "341 Ark. 300"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "16 S.W.3d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "983 S.W.2d 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6137088,
        862781,
        51358
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/64/0067-01",
        "/ark/335/0546-01",
        "/ark/336/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 Ark. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        862781
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/335/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 Ark. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        51191
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/336/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "975 S.W.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 Ark. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1655472
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/334/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "853 S.W.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1914664,
        6137217
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0373-01",
        "/ark-app/42/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914664
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12020267
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 Ark. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        51312
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/336/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S.W.3d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1257812,
        1257711
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0251-01",
        "/ark/341/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257812
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ark. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1365261
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/340/0084-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 3633,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.047407397110796806
    },
    "sha256": "ce31e6ea75a396b8e68f3a3a9acde179699f5dedf53bc6af041846a8b21defde",
    "simhash": "1:289e44a2e2466d1a",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:19.609022+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dewayne GLASS; Avenell Scott; Ray Albert Hussey; Jason Jordan v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nBefore us are four motions for rule on the AM. submitted by G.B. \u201cBing\u201d Colvin, III, requesting permission to file belated petitions for review of orders by the Arkansas Court of Appeals denying his motions for attorneys\u2019 fees in the above-captioned matters.\nMr. Colvin is the managing attorney for the Tenth Judicial District Public Defender Office. The motions for attorneys\u2019 fees for which he seeks review were submitted on behalf of his office by attorneys who acted as \u201cbriefing assistants\u201d for the public defender\u2019s office. The briefing assistants, according to Mr. Colvin, are private attorneys who assisted in the preparation of appellate briefs on behalf of indigent criminal defendants represented by the public defender\u2019s office. In return for the appellate work, the briefing assistants were to receive as compensation any attorneys\u2019 fees granted by the appellate court in the matters on which they worked. They submitted the motions for attorneys\u2019 fees on behalf of the public defender. In exchange, the public defender agreed to endorse the payment by the appellate court and deliver it in its entirety to the briefing assistants. Following this court\u2019s decision in Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000), wherein we held that state-salaried public defenders are not entitled to additional compensation for appellate work, the Court of Appeals denied the motions for attorneys\u2019 fees in the above-captioned matters submitted on behalf of the Tenth Judicial District Public Defender Office. Mr. Colvin requests that we review those rulings and declare Rushing inapplicable to the above-captioned cases for two principal reasons. First, Mr. Colvin argues that the appellate work for which fees are sought was performed prior to this court\u2019s decision in Rushing, thereby rendering the Court of Appeals denial of fees in these cases a retroactive application of new law. Second, he alleges that Rushing is inapplicable where the entire award of attorney\u2019s fees will be given to private counsel who merely contracted with the public defender\u2019s office for the work. Consequently, no state-salaried public defender will actually be compensated by the award of attorney\u2019s fees.\nWhile this court has the discretion to review the decisions of the Court of Appeals, as Mr. Colvin has acknowledged in his motion, that discretion is limited to the review of appeals decided by the Court of Appeals. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(e). Unless the matter sought to be reviewed involves a motion to dismiss appeal, thereby invoking this court\u2019s ultimate authority as to the determination of appellate jurisdiction, we do not review rulings by the Court of Appeals on motions. See Simmons v. State, 341 Ark. 251, 15 S.W.3d 344 (2000); Barnett v. State, 336 Ark. 165, 984 S.W.2d 444 (1999); Tabor v. State, 326 Ark. 51, 930 S.W.2d 319 (1996); Kimble v. Gray, 313 Ark. 373, 853 S.W.2d 890 (1993). The motions for rule on the clerk are, therefore, denied.\nIt should be noted that motions involving an issue of significant public interest may be certified to us by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(d). Webber v. Arkansas Dep\u2019t of Human Servs., 334 Ark. 527, 975 S.W.2d 879 (1998); See also, Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999); Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 335 Ark. 546, 983 S.W.2d 126 (1998).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G.B. \u201cBing\u201d Colvin, III, for appellants.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dewayne GLASS; Avenell Scott; Ray Albert Hussey; Jason Jordan v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 00-454; CR 00-455; CR 00-457; CR 00-459\n16 S.W.3d 543\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 11, 2000\nG.B. \u201cBing\u201d Colvin, III, for appellants.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0300-01",
  "first_page_order": 326,
  "last_page_order": 328
}