{
  "id": 1158938,
  "name": "Charles DUGGER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dugger v. State",
  "decision_date": "2003-01-16",
  "docket_number": "CR 02-637",
  "first_page": "443",
  "last_page": "444",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "351 Ark. 443"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "94 S.W.3d 924"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "925 S.W.2d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        369218,
        369355
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/325/0316-01",
        "/ark/325/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 Ark. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        369218
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/325/0316-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2333,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.695,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.04258800416549382
    },
    "sha256": "fab1833744a9b60e74ff7a3565ebb17ffc0911b59c864a4b32b26321082cd9ca",
    "simhash": "1:534cf0a16c2df44a",
    "word_count": 407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:20:47.503009+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles DUGGER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Curiam.\nOn October 10, 2002, our court concluded that Mr. Charles Dugger\u2019s attorney, Ronald Carey Nichols, had filed a timely notice of appeal from Dugger\u2019s conviction judgment, but failed to file the record with this court in order to perfect Dugger\u2019s appeal. See Dugger v. State, No. CR 02-637 (Oct. 10, 2002). Mr. Nichols\u2019s failure to file the record resulted in this court ordering him to appear before us on Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., and to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Mr. Nichols appeared before us on January 9 and pled guilty to contempt, conceding his failure to take proper action, which has caused Dugger\u2019s appeal not to be perfected for more than one year. In mitigation, Mr. Nichols blamed his delay on having had an illness and death in his family, and he also related that when he went to pick up the record, he was told by the court clerk that some unknown woman had already picked up the transcript. Mr. Nichols claims he had tendered payment for the record.\nAs we noted in our October 10, 2002, per curiam, Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014 Criminal provides that trial counsel must continue to represent a convicted defendant throughout any appeal unless the trial court or appellate court permits counsel to withdraw. Mr. Nichols has never been relieved of his responsibility in this case, and in fact, Mr. Nichols agreed that the trial court had previously denied his request to withdraw.\nWe agree that Mr. Nichols is in contempt, and we impose a fine of $250.00 which shall be paid within thirty days from the date of this per curiam. Nichols announced in court that he believed that he could have the record in this case filed within thirty days, and we direct that he do so. A copy of this per curiam will be forwarded to the Professional Conduct Committee.\nMr. Nichols offered mitigating circumstances in an earlier, unrelated show cause hearing in Bowden v. State, 325 Ark. 316, 925 S.W.2d 158 (1996) (per curiam).\nIt is unclear who paid for the transcript. Mr. Nichols testified that he had the money to pay the clerk, but later said that the unknown woman paid for the transcript.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald Carey Nichols, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles DUGGER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 02-637\n94 S.W.3d 924\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 16, 2003\nRonald Carey Nichols, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0443-01",
  "first_page_order": 471,
  "last_page_order": 472
}