{
  "id": 1404474,
  "name": "Michael Jay VENIS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Venis v. State",
  "decision_date": "2002-09-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 02-920",
  "first_page": "110",
  "last_page": "112",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "350 Ark. 110"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "84 S.W.3d 867"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668966
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 S.W.3d 519",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1111312,
        1111311
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/346/0001-01",
        "/ark/346/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 Ark. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1111311
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/346/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.W.3d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        683433,
        683271
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0363-01",
        "/ark/347/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683271
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 S.W.3d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        74056,
        74078
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/348/0304-01",
        "/ark/348/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 Ark. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        74056
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/348/0304-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 5111,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.706,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.506136593398951e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9230930065806925
    },
    "sha256": "6dbcb01de6cb3793115d03f4a287dc45bf3dd58fbe08d5b6f57bb41b83a98b57",
    "simhash": "1:232320ecf45429ab",
    "word_count": 837
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:54.106154+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael Jay VENIS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Michael Jay Venis, by and through the Benton County Public Defender\u2019s Office, has filed a motion for belated appeal from his convictions of manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in the Benton County Circuit Court, Division I. The motion reflects that Appellant was represented at trial by privately retained counsel John Gross. The jury trial was held on March 21, 2002. Following his convictions, Appellant retained attorney Eric Flagler for the purpose of pursuing a motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. A hearing was held in the circuit court, after which the motion for new trial was denied. Thereafter, on April 30, 2002, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-five years\u2019 imprisonment on the manufacturing charge and six years\u2019 imprisonment on the possession charge. The judgment'and commitment order was filed on June 7, 2002.\nIn the meantime, the Benton County Public Defender was appointed to represent Appellant in another criminal matter in Division II of the Benton'County Circuit Court. Through its representation of Appellant, the public defender\u2019s office had several discussions with Mr. Gross regarding his participation in Appellant\u2019s appeal from his convictions in Division I. According to the motion, Mr. Gross had never been relieved as attorney of record in the Division I case.\nAn affidavit filed by Chief Deputy Public Defender Kristin Pawlik reflects that she discussed the matter with Mr. Gross, verbally and through written correspondence. According to her affidavit, she spoke with Mr. Gross on May 9, 2002, prior to the date that the judgment was entered, and that he had assured her that he was monitoring Appellant\u2019s case and filings for the purpose of appeal and that, despite his concern that a conflict may have arisen between himself and Appellant during the hearing on the motion for new trial, he would take steps to ensure that the notice of appeal was filed. On July 31, 2002, Ms. Pawlik wrote a letter to Mr. Gross stating that Appellant\u2019s family had been in contact with her office about the status of his appeal. She informed him that she had reviewed the court\u2019s file and noticed that the judgment had been entered on June 7, 2002, but that no notice of appeal had yet been filed. On August 1, 2002, Ms. Pawlik spoke with Mr. Gross by telephone, during which conversation Mr. Gross informed her that he would file a motion to address .the belated notice of appeal. Again, on August 2, Mr. Gross assured Ms. Pawlik that he would file a motion for belated appeal.\nChief Public Defender Jay Saxton also filed an affidavit regarding his communications with Mr. Gross. Specifically, Mr. Saxton\u2019s affidavit reflects that on August 16, 2002, he spoke with Mr. Gross about Appellant's appeal. During that conversation, Mr. Gross stated that he had consulted with his malpractice insurer and two other (unknown) persons and had decided that he would not file a notice of appeal, nor would he take any further action on Appellant\u2019s behalf. Mr. Gross acknowledged his continuing responsibility and duty as attorney of record to file the notice of appeal for Appellant\u2019s case. Mr. Gross further acknowledged that it was his lack of due diligence that had resulted in no notice of appeal being timely filed in Appellant\u2019s case.\nWhile acknowledging that his office is not the attorney of record, Mr. Saxton now moves this court for permission to file a belated appeal in Appellant\u2019s Division I criminal case. For over twenty years, this court has consistently granted motions for belated appeals brought on behalf of criminal defendants where the attorney admits that an error has been made and accepts responsibility for that error. See, e.g., Ray v. State, 348 Ark. 304, 73 S.W.3d 594 (2002) (per curiam); Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 362, 64 S.W.3d 274 (2002) (per curiam); Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 8, 53 S.W.3d 519 (2001) (per curiam); In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam); Harkness v. State, 264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978).\nIn this case, however, we cannot grant the motion at this time, because the record before us does not demonstrate whether Mr. Gross has ever been relieved of his duties as attorney of record or whether the public defender\u2019s office has been appointed to represent Appellant\u2019s appeal from his Division I convictions. Accordingly, we must remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Mr. Gross was relieved of his responsibility to represent Appellant in this matter, whether Appellant requested that Mr. Gross file a notice of appeal on his behalf, and whether the public defender\u2019s office has been appointed to represent Appellant in this appeal. We therefore grant the parties thirty days from the date of this per curiam order to settle these issues.\nRemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jay Saxton, Chief Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael Jay VENIS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 02-920\n84 S.W.3d 867\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 19, 2002\nJay Saxton, Chief Public Defender, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0110-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 136
}