{
  "id": 5460516,
  "name": "Keela McGAHEY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "McGahey v. State",
  "decision_date": "2004-12-09",
  "docket_number": "CR 04-1041",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "360 Ark. 94"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "199 S.W.3d 682"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "359 Ark. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3712834
      ],
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/359/0252-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5222009082382796
    },
    "sha256": "1ee0fbded91f224db586afd0898470f966e73517896a38db0fd70b5c6b59eb4f",
    "simhash": "1:738b7d7526f3f20d",
    "word_count": 346
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:58:07.617704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Keela McGAHEY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant, Keela McGahey, filed a motion for rule on the clerk, which we granted in McGahey v. State, 359 Ark. 252, 195 S.W.3d 922 (2004). In McGahey, we stated that \u201cthe motion and accompanying record fail[ed] to reveal plainly whether there was an attorney\u2019s error,\u201d on the part of appellant\u2019s former counsel, Mr. Jimmy Doyle. We remanded the matter of attorney error to the circuit court to make findings of fact. Id.\nOn November 19, 2004, an order from the Desha County Circuit Court containing those findings was filed with our court. At the hearing, evidence was presented that is consistent with McGahey, supra, where we stated:\nOn May 15,2003, the court reporter forwarded a letter to Mr. Doyle, outlining the parties\u2019 conversation regarding payment of the record. On June 20, 2003, the court reporter again forwarded a letter to Mr. Doyle, notifying him that the time for filing the record had passed. The court reporter also noted the possibility of appellant being declared indigent.\nMr. Doyle sent a letter dated February 9, 2004, to appellant, requesting that she sign an affidavit to receive the record as a pauper. Appellant signed and returned the affidavit to Mr. Doyle on February 18,2004.\nId.\nThe trial court further ruled that there was no motion or order in the file that indicates that Mr. Doyle requested or was relieved as attorney of record for appellant.\nWe hereby relieve Mr. Doyle as attorney of record sua sponte and order Mr. Doyle to appear before this court at 9:00 a.m., on Thursday, January 13, 2005, to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for his conduct in representing appellant in failing to secure the record for appellant\u2019s appeal.\nWe note that in McGahey, supra, we granted appellant\u2019s motion to substitute counsel. Mr. Hubert W. Alexander is the attorney of record in appellant\u2019s case.\nIt is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hubert Alexander, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Keela McGAHEY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 04-1041\n199 S.W.3d 682\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 9, 2004\nHubert Alexander, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 116,
  "last_page_order": 117
}