{
  "id": 939039,
  "name": "Raymond MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. State",
  "decision_date": "2001-06-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 01-600",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "345 Ark. 359"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "45 S.W.3d 846"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877718
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619047
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 Ark. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        130663
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/339/0403-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3636,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.233528503323553e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9573784031424226
    },
    "sha256": "6d53eb91f2d07269e3f5de6e756dfc508f0e0a5014a9c9bf06d24f609c1b5339",
    "simhash": "1:bf46d0975465999e",
    "word_count": 602
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:17.216423+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Raymond MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn September 6, 1997, a hearing was held before the Arkansas Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners concerning a complaint filed by then-practicing attorney Wayne A. Gruber against Nila J. Keels, CCR #456. As a result of that hearing, Keels\u2019s license was revoked. That revocation still stands. The Board\u2019s actions are filed with the Supreme Court Clerk\u2019s file, of which this court takes judicial notice. See Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403, 5 S.W3d 446 (1999); State v. Knight, 259 Ark. 107, 533 S.W2d 488 (1976).\nThe issue now before this court involving Ms. Keels arises in Raymond Mitchell\u2019s attempt to perfect his appeal from a hearing held on February 28, 2001, where the circuit court revoked Mitchell\u2019s earlier suspended imposition of sentence in CR-96-258 in the Chickasawba District of Mississippi County Circuit Court. Ms. Keels was the court reporter, and Mitchell timely filed his notice of appeal and requested a copy of the transcript. On May 9, 2001, Mitchell\u2019s original record was mailed to the Supreme Court Clerk to lodge the appeal, but the clerk notified Mitchell\u2019s counsel that the record could not be lodged because Ms. Keels was not a certified court reporter. On May 24, 2001, Mitchell requested a motion for rule on the clerk to file the record regardless of Ms. Keels\u2019s failure of certification, but we denied that request.\nOn May 29, 2001, Mitchell renewed his request for motion for rule on the clerk, attaching the lower court\u2019s emergency order which reflected that court\u2019s attempt to grant Ms. Keels a 120-day period from January 2, 2001 to May 1, 2001, to continue the court\u2019s business as provided under Section 13 of the regulations of the Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners. Even assuming the circuit court\u2019s emergency order was valid, that order has expired on its face, and Ms. Keels is not shown as certified or licensed to complete the court\u2019s business so as to permit the lodging of Mitchell\u2019s appeal.\nThe court clerk\u2019s officer clearly was correct in rejecting a transcript from a court reporter who is not certified, and therefore we deny Mitchell\u2019s motion. The court has clearly held that its intention is to strictly adhere to Section 9 of the Rules Providing for Certification of Court Reporters, which provides all transcripts taken in court proceedings will be accepted only if they are certified by a court reporter who holds a valid certificate. See Pullam v. Fulhright, 285 Ark. 152, 685 S.W.2d 151 (1985). However, because this is a criminal case, we will direct the Supreme Court Clerk to accept the transcript in this case, provided the attorneys of record will certify to the Clerk, by affidavit, statements that the transcripts are true, accurate, and complete. Moreover, the trial court shall certify within thirty days of this per curiam that this reporter is not now employed as a court reporter without proper certification by the Board of Certified Court Reporter Examiners. Id.\nThere are other complaints and actions that have been taken against Ms. Keels that are reflected in the Supreme Court Clerk\u2019s file, but we need not dwell on them for present purposes.\nThis court need not reach at this time other pending questions surrounding the emergency order\u2019s validity For example, a serious issue is raised as to whether such emergency orders are intended to extend a court reporter\u2019s license if grounds have been shown to warrant revocation under Section 19 of the Board\u2019s regulations.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John H. Bradley, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Raymond MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 01-600\n45 S.W.3d 846\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 21, 2001\nJohn H. Bradley, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 383
}