{
  "id": 3656655,
  "name": "Ledell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. State",
  "decision_date": "2006-04-13",
  "docket_number": "CR 99-1116",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "366 Ark. 172"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "233 S.W.3d 674"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "363 Ark. 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3557225
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/363/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 Ark. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        226564
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/343/0702-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1276,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.82,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.10559978593346563
    },
    "sha256": "fa22b93caecc72332a98a1c9c5bab36f36ce0bf8b7726e033ea6da9dc2e02adc",
    "simhash": "1:3e1ff694af8bf509",
    "word_count": 209
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:10.654271+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ledell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Ledell Lee moves this court to recall its mandate affirming the trial court\u2019s denial of post-conviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5. See Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702, 38 S.W.3d 334 (2001). At this time, however, we are unable to address the merits of Appellant\u2019s motion, as his counsel, Deborah Sailings, has failed to request this court to appoint her to represent Appellant in the instant proceedings. Pursuant to this court\u2019s decision in Hill v. State, 363 Ark. 480, 215 S.W.3d 589 (2005), counsel seeking to represent a capital defendant in connection with unexhausted state remedies following issuance of the mandate must comply with the criteria for appointment set forth in Rule 37.5 and must be appointed by this court.\nAccordingly, Ms. Sailings has fifteen days from the issuance of this per curiam to comply with the requirements ofRule 37.5 and Hill.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Cauley, Bowman, Carney, & Williams, PLLC, by: Deborah Sailings; and Public Interest Litigation Clinic, Kansas City, Missouri, by: Kent E. Gipson and William C. Odie, for appellant.",
      "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ledell LEE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 99-1116\n233 S.W.3d 674\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 13, 2006\nCauley, Bowman, Carney, & Williams, PLLC, by: Deborah Sailings; and Public Interest Litigation Clinic, Kansas City, Missouri, by: Kent E. Gipson and William C. Odie, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 197
}