{
  "id": 1155542,
  "name": "Darrell PILCHER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pilcher v. State",
  "decision_date": "2003-05-22",
  "docket_number": "CR 02-549",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "353 Ark. 357"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "107 S.W.3d 172"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257708
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0170-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.W.3d 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1111338,
        1111394
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/346/0298-01",
        "/ark/346/0264-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 Ark. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1111338
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/346/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683225
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "finding abstract deficient and ordering counsel to refile his brief"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "finding abstract deficient and ordering counsel to refile his brief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683336
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "finding abstract flagrantly deficient and ordering counsel to rebrief the matter"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "finding abstract flagrantly deficient and ordering counsel to rebrief the matter"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0515-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 247,
    "char_count": 3426,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.707,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.724600673813057e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4082143399093924
    },
    "sha256": "7aab992b629feb49d3d6d2f10a7119e8236721f81ee69f09bb95d500bc312f46",
    "simhash": "1:9a884cb2e901bd5f",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:52.629354+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Darrell PILCHER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant, Darrell Pilcher, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the murder of Carolyn Farley. In his only point on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials. Because the brief filed by Joe Kelly Hardin on behalf of appellant is woefully deficient, we are ordering rebriefing.\nAppellate counsel has a duty to file a brief that adequately and zealously presents the issues and that cites us to persuasive authority. If counsel has failed in this duty, we can remand the case for rebriefing by appellate counsel. See e.g., Ward v. State, 347 Ark. 515, 65 S.W.3d 451 (2002) (finding abstract flagrantly deficient and ordering counsel to rebrief the matter); Dansby v. State, 347 Ark. 509, 65 S.W.3d 448 (2002) (finding abstract deficient and ordering counsel to refile his brief); Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298, 57 S.W.3d 691 (2001) (ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)); Dewberry v. State, 341 Ark. 170, 15 S.W.3d 671 (2000) (ordering rebriefing in compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(l)).\nIn the case now before us, appellant was sentenced to fife imprisonment without the possibility of parole for capital murder. His appellate counsel submitted a brief that contained a two-page argument. After reviewing the brief, we consider the argument portion to be woefully deficient. Given the fact that Mr. Hardin had several extensions of time for filing appellant\u2019s initial brief, this deficiency is egregious. In addition, we note that Mr. Hardin failed to file a reply brief rebutting arguments raised by the State. The brief filed by Mr. Hardin on appellant\u2019s behalf does not comply with our rules. Accordingly, we order Mr. Hardin to file a new brief.\nUpon rebriefing, Mr. Hardin should specifically articulate his allegations of error and support those allegations of error with applicable citation to recent authority. Additionally, Mr. Hardin should apply the persuasive authority to the facts of appellant\u2019s case, thoroughly analyze the issues, and advocate for a result that benefits appellant. In drafting his new brief, Mr. Hardin should avoid the use of conclusory arguments or arguments that are not fully developed. We would further suggest that if the State responds to Mr. Hardin\u2019s revised brief, Mr. Hardin should consider the arguments raised by the State and respond appropriately.\nMr. Hardin\u2019s revised brief is due in thirty days. The State may then respond to the revised brief within fifteen days. Thereafter, Mr. Hardin will have ten days in which to file a reply brief.\nRebriefing ordered.\nCorbin, J., not participating.\nInitially, appellant\u2019s brief was due on July 9, 2002. On June 21, 2002, we granted Mr. Hardin an extension, making the brief due on October 2, 2002. On September 19, 2002, we granted Mr. Hardin a second extension, extending the time for filing appellant\u2019s brief until November 10, 2002. On November 8, 2002, we granted Mr. Hardin a final extension until December 10, 2002, in which to file the brief Mr. Hardin filed the brief on November 19, 2002.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joe Kelly Hardin, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Katherine Adams, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Darrell PILCHER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 02-549\n107 S.W.3d 172\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 22, 2003\nJoe Kelly Hardin, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Katherine Adams, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 383
}