{
  "id": 1404499,
  "name": "Rickey NEWMAN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newman v. State",
  "decision_date": "2002-09-12",
  "docket_number": "CR 02-811",
  "first_page": "53",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "350 Ark. 53"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "84 S.W.3d 43"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683202
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0695-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 19-4-1604",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)(2)(B)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257799
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 180,
    "char_count": 2143,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05276041190046215
    },
    "sha256": "cec0258640f16eb7bbbdde3d4b7665c62a571976c352b45dc9632a619c8e4fe0",
    "simhash": "1:b94210b4d67bd62f",
    "word_count": 347
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:54.106154+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Rickey NEWMAN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nRobert C. Marquette, a state-salaried, full-time public defender for the Twenty-First Judicial District, was appointed by the trial court to represent Appellant Rickey Newman, an indigent defendant, on the charge of capital murder. Following a trial, Newman was convicted of the charge and sentenced to death. A timely notice of appeal was filed by the circuit clerk, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 10, and the record was timely lodged in this court.\nMr. Marquette now asks to be relieved as counsel for Appellant in this criminal appeal, based on the case of Rushing v. State, 340 Ark. 84, 8 S.W.3d 489 (2000). There, this court determined that state-salaried, full-time public defenders were ineligible for compensation by the court for work performed in the appeal of a matter in which the public defender represented the defendant. Mr. Marquette also relies on the case of Tester v. State, 341 Ark. 281, 16 S.W.3d 227 (2000) (per curiam), wherein this court relieved the appellant\u2019s court-appointed public defender and appointed new counsel on appeal under similar circumstances.\nSince the time of those decisions, however, the law was changed by the General Assembly. Particularly, Act 1370 of 2001 provided in part: \u201cPersons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state funded secretary, may also seek compensation for appellate work from the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals.\u201d That provision is now codified as Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Supp. 2001).\nMr. Marquette\u2019s motion does not state whether he is provided a state-funded secretary. Accordingly, we must deny his motion at this time. See Mills v. State, 347 Ark. 695, 66 S.W.3d 643 (2002) (per curiam). Mr. Marquette may resubmit his motion, providing information about whether he is provided a state-funded secretary, in order for us to determine whether he qualifies for dismissal in light of section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B).\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert C. Marquette, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rickey NEWMAN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 02-811\n84 S.W.3d 43\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 12, 2002\nRobert C. Marquette, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0053-01",
  "first_page_order": 77,
  "last_page_order": 78
}