{
  "id": 210168,
  "name": "Jimmy D. MURRAY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murray v. State",
  "decision_date": "2001-03-01",
  "docket_number": "CR 00-1044",
  "first_page": "7",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "344 Ark. 7"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "37 S.W.3d 641"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898861
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907720
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907794
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891435
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250"
        },
        {
          "page": "863"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0247-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 508,
    "char_count": 9610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.973126083369309e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3716855693131144
    },
    "sha256": "8e4f74a6b6424982eef93f3a32e3692355afb72a0525e65161ed03548270687b",
    "simhash": "1:597e57fe5aab0800",
    "word_count": 1689
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:48:00.616095+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jimmy D. MURRAY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ROBERT L. Brown, Justice.\nAppellant Jimmy D. Murray\nappeals from a dismissalof his appeal by the Benton County Circuit Court. He raises multiple issues relating to whether the City of Rogers Municipal Court entered a judgment, which began the time period in which a notice of appeal and record were required to be filed under our Inferior Court Rules. We hold that the circuit court properly dismissed the appeal as untimely, and we affirm that dismissal.\nThe facts of this case follow. On July 29, 1998, a citation was issued to Murray, accusing him of committing the offense of nonsupport, a Class D felony. Subsequently, the circuit court entered an order granting the prosecutor\u2019s motion to transfer the case to the Rogers Municipal Court on a reduced charge of nonsupport, which was a Class A misdemeanor. Later, a summons was issued by the Rogers Municipal Court for Murray to appear in court on May 24, 1999, at 10:30 a.m.\nApparently, a hearing was held. At the bottom of the issued summons, these handwritten notations appeared, followed by the signature of Special Municipal Judge Edwin McClure and the date of May 24, 1999:\nGuilty\n$2,780 Restitution\n$1,000 Pine jail time + fine + cos[ts]\n$75 Costs suspended if restitution paid\n90 days in BC Jail within 30 days\nOkay fine to paid [sic] to Mary Skaggs Edwin McClure\n5.24.99\nAt the top of this document was the Rogers Municipal Court Clerk\u2019s stamp dated June 22, 1999. On June 24, 1999, Murray filed a notice of appeal in the Benton County Circuit Court. On that same date, the Rogers Municipal Court record was filed with the circuit court clerk.\nAt an arraignment hearing on July 26, 1999, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that it was not timely filed. Murray then filed an answer to the motion and brief in support. Attached to the brief were the following: (1) a copy of the municipal court summons referenced above; (2) an affidavit by Cynthia Rogers of The Rogers Law Firm in which she stated that she had filed a notice of appeal and requested and paid for a transcript from the Rogers Municipal Court on June 21, 1999; that the transcript could not be prepared immediately by the court; and that on June 23, 1999, the court informed her at 4:30 p.m. the transcript was ready and could be picked up the next morning; and. (3) an affidavit by Edmundo Rogers, Murray\u2019s attorney, wherein he stated that he was shown the files and records kept by the Rogers Municipal Court Clerk; those files were not bound; and the documents of separate cases were kept in a manila folder and placed in a filing cabinet with other decisions and cases of the court.\nOn May 23, 2000, an order was entered by the circuit court which contained these findings:\n3. The date of May 24, 1999, is the date of entry of judgment in Rogers Municipal Court.\n4. The means by which the Rogers Municipal Court entered said judgment \u2014 the handwritten notation on the March 18, 1999, Rogers Municipal Court summons to Defendant \u2014 complied with the relevant law and rules of procedure for entries of judgment.\n5. Defendant\u2019s appeal from said judgment to the Benton County Circuit Court was untimely.\n6. Because the appeal was untimely, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to Rogers Municipal Court for execution of sentence.\nThe basis of the circuit court\u2019s dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was Murray\u2019s failure to file the appeal within thirty days of the entry of the municipal court judgment. See Inferior Ct. R. 9.\nMurray appeals the circuit court order and first contends that that court erred in ruling that the handwritten notations by Special Judge McClure at the bottom of the summons was a judgment. He further contends that our Inferior Court Rules do not define what form a judgment must take and that, as a result, we must look to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure for the appropriate rule pursuant to Inferior Ct. R. 10. Rule 10 reads:\nWhere applicable and unless otherwise specifically modified herein, the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and rules of evidence shall apply to and govern matters of procedure and evidence in the inferior courts of this State.\nSpecifically, Murray cites this court to Ark. R_. Civ. P. 58, which requires that every judgment \u201cshall be set forth on a separate document.\u201d Because the alleged judgment was not on a separate document, Murray contends it was invalid.\nWe disagree because our Inferior Court Rules contain a specific provision governing entry of judgments. Subsections (b) and (c) of Rule 8 provide:\n(b) Upon the Merits. Where the court has decided the case, it shall enter judgment in favor of the prevailing party for the relief to which he is deemed entided.\n(c) Docket Entry. The court shall timely enter in the docket the date and amount of the judgment, whether rendered by default or upon the merits.\nInferior Ct. R. 8(b), (c). Furthermore, we have held that Inferior Ct. R. 8(c) and 9 \u201creflect that an inferior court, such as the municipal court, enters any judgment it renders by entering, in a timely manner, the date and amount of the judgment in the court\u2019s docket.\u201d West Apartments, Inc. v. Booth, 297 Ark. 247, 250, 760 S.W.2d 861, 863 (1988).\nThis court has, therefore, made it clear by rule and caselaw that a judgment is entered in municipal court by entering the date and the amount of the judgment in the court\u2019s docket. The ultimate question before us is whether Special Judge McClure\u2019s notations of his disposition of the case constituted a docket entry for purposes of Rule 8(c). We conclude that it did.\nThe term \u201cdocket\u201d is defined in Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 495 (7th ed. 1999), as \u201c[a] formal record in which a judge or court clerk briefly notes all the proceedings and filings in a court case[.]\u201d As already noted, entry of the date and amount of the judgment in the court\u2019s docket is entry of the judgment under our Inferior Court Rules. This procedure is categorically different from the procedure for entry of judgment in courts of general jurisdiction under Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civ. 4(d) and Administrative Order 2(b)(2), where it is stated that a judgment is entered when stamped \u201cfiled\u201d by the clerk.\nWe turn then to the testimony of Lee Pestel, Chief Court Clerk for the Rogers Municipal Court. She testified in the hearing before the circuit court that because the computers were down, she was using a different file system. She explained the new filing system in this colloquy:\nDefense Counsel: Okay, thank you. And, uh, how \u2014 after the judge renders a judgment, how do you docket these cases? How do you \u25a0\u2014 what, what is the process of docketing the cases?\nMs. PESTEL: Um, the cases are put in a file folder, dated, and then in (sic) alphabetical order.\nDefense Counsel: Okay, in alphabetical order?\nMs. Pestel: Um-hmm.\nDefense Counsel: Do you \u2014 you don\u2019t have a docket numbering system, correct? There is no system like you give a case a number in the docket, you just do it by alphabetic order?\nMS. PESTEL: We are unable to do that right now.\nDefense Counsel: Okay. Okay. Now, do you usually docket them the same day or do you sometimes leave it for the next morning? The judge says, tells the people, \u201cYou are guilty\u201d or he awards, he awards \u2014 he has put it in a file folder. Do you guys usually put it in the file cabinets, the docket file cabinets that same day or sometimes the next morning?\nMS. PESTEL: No, sometimes the next morning, sometimes two or three days later.\nWe do not agree with Murray that for a docket entry to be made in municipal court, it must be done in a docket book. Certainly, Inferior Ct. R. 8(c) does not require that. In this case the disposition of the case and the penalty were written on the summons and then signed and dated by the Special Judge. That satisfies the definition in Black\u2019s Law Dictionary and suffices as a docket entry under Inferior Ct. R. 8(c). Moreover, we do not consider the fact that the municipal court clerk may have filed the manila folder in this case one, two, or three days later as material or determinative. Filing the manila folder did not constitute a docket entry. A docket entry occurred when the pertinent information was written on the summons by the Special Judge. Nor do we read Ms. Pestel\u2019s testimony to say that docketing occurred when the manila envelopes were filed.\nBecause there was an entry of judgment on May 24, 1999, Murray was required to file hi's appeal in the circuit court clerk\u2019s office within thirty days from the date of the entry of judgment. See Inferior Ct. R. 9(a). In the instant case, the entry of judgment took place on May 24, 1999, and Murray\u2019s thirty days expired on June 23, 1999. Murray filed his notice of appeal and record on June 24, 1999, one day outside of the thirty-day time limit. In appeals from municipal court to circuit court, it is the filing of the municipal court record with the circuit clerk that perfects the appeal. See Inferior Ct. R. 9(b). This Court has held that the thirty-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 316 Ark. 32, 870 S.W.2d 716 (1994); Ottens v. State, 316 Ark. 1, 871 S.W.2d 329 (1994); Allred v. State, 310 Ark. 476, 837 S.W.2d 469 (1992). Because appellant failed to timely file his appeal in the circuit court, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to decide the appeal and properly dismissed it.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ROBERT L. Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmundo G. Rogers, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Michael C. Angel, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jimmy D. MURRAY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 00-1044\n37 S.W.3d 641\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 1, 2001\nEdmundo G. Rogers, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Michael C. Angel, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0007-01",
  "first_page_order": 35,
  "last_page_order": 40
}