{
  "id": 1513716,
  "name": "Michael JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. State",
  "decision_date": "2002-07-11",
  "docket_number": "CR 00-1383",
  "first_page": "736",
  "last_page": "737",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "349 Ark. 736"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "80 S.W.3d 756"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "338 Ark. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        243443
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding that the plain language of Rule 37 is controlling and unambiguous in stating that the petition must be filed in the appropriate circuit court within the time limits specified in the rule"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "holding that the plain language of Rule 37 is controlling and unambiguous in stating that the petition must be filed in the appropriate circuit court within the time limits specified in the rule"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/338/0769-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 Ark. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        369313
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "248",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/325/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935069
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455781
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0599-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 195",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449591
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0195-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 Ark. 614",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1445778
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/323/0614-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ark. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1365279
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/340/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 809",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683451
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0809-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 2669,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.056629170272089226
    },
    "sha256": "f3be8c8326a26a0cf3885d5a83b5f31ff5fa4929e223d8e58e15da2e9355f27a",
    "simhash": "1:7368f8b4e3fd3f8c",
    "word_count": 463
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:02.317850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Imber, J., joins this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Michael JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\ndissenting. This court has repeatedly held that the filing deadlines imposed by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and that if they are not met, a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 37 petition. See, e.g., Worthem v. State, 347 Ark. 809, 66 S.W.3d 665 (2002); Hill v. State, 340 Ark. 248, 13 S.W.3d 142 (2000); Hamilton v. State, 323 Ark. 614, 918 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Smith v. State, 321 Ark. 195, 900 S.W.2d 939 (1995); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180, 848 S.W.2d 391 (1993). In Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996), this court held that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to consider a petition to reduce sentence when the appellant, Benton, did not file his petition with the circuit clerk, but instead \u201csent\u201d the petition to the circuit judge, who ruled on it. There, this court wrote the following:\nWith respect to whether the petition in this case was properly filed, the filing of a petition for postconviction relief with the circuit clerk is critical in that the date of the filing of such a petition determines whether the trial court has jurisdiction to consider the petition on the merits. Delivering an item to a circuit judge is not the equivalent of filing the item with the clerk for the purposes of determining whether an item is timely filed under Rule 31.\nId., 325 Ark. at 248 (emphasis added). See also Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999) (holding that the plain language of Rule 37 is controlling and unambiguous in stating that the petition must be filed in the appropriate circuit court within the time limits specified in the rule).\nHere, Jackson\u2019s conviction was affirmed by the court of appeals on November 3, 1999, and the mandate was issued on November 23, 1999. Jackson mailed his Rule 37 petition to both the circuit clerk\u2019s office and the prosecutor\u2019s office on December 1, 1999, but the copy that he mailed to the clerk\u2019s office did not arrive until January 28, 2000, the date reflected on the clerk\u2019s file stamp. This was sixty-seven days after the issuance of the court of appeals\u2019 mandate. Despite the fact that the prosecutor\u2019s office received its copy in a timely fashion and the circuit court proceeded to hear Jackson\u2019s petition on the merits, the above-cited cases make it clear that the circuit court was without jurisdiction to do so. For this reason, I would grant the State\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal.\nImber, J., joins this dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael JACKSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 00-1383\n80 S.W.3d 756\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 11, 2002\n[Dissenting opinion only.]"
  },
  "file_name": "0736-01",
  "first_page_order": 760,
  "last_page_order": 761
}