{
  "id": 3690400,
  "name": "Lee Mark HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harris v. State",
  "decision_date": "2008-10-30",
  "docket_number": "CR 08-762",
  "first_page": "529",
  "last_page": "530",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "374 Ark. 529"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "288 S.W.3d 645"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "358 Ark. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8452337
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/358/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 Ark. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        683468
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/347/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 739",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257793
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0739-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 199,
    "char_count": 2601,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4975956836136062e-07,
      "percentile": 0.664743002391259
    },
    "sha256": "b6e5837272724a2dd7ca46d499dd79e71e454e1ff81b0166b5fa6289f72f6b9c",
    "simhash": "1:f486c6d59c2b8525",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:09.980592+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lee Mark HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn November 27, 2007, a jury found petitioner Lee Mark Harris guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced him to 960 months\u2019 imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The judgment was entered on December 14, 2007, and on December 10, 2007, trial counsel representing petitioner, Mr. Don Warren, filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was not perfected and petitioner filed a pro se motion for belated appeal. We treated the motion for belated appeal as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record and granted it.\nIn our per curiam on October 2, 2008, we directed petitioner\u2019s retained counsel to file a petition for writ of certiorari to call up the entire record, as only a partial record had been filed. Harris v. State, CR08-762 (Ark. Oct. 2, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). Mr. Warren has filed the petition as directed and we grant petitioner thirty (30) days to complete the record.\nMr. Warren also moves this court to be relieved as attorney of record. He argues that \u201cthe interests of petitioner, Lee Mark Harris, would be best served if he is allowed to proceed in the manner he has requested,\u201d apparently referring to Harris\u2019s pro se request to proceed in forma pauperis.\nWe note that in his motion for pro se belated appeal (which we treated as a motion for rule on clerk) Mr. Harris states that he asked Mr. Warren to \u201cappeal my case\u201d and that Mr. Warren said yes, but later wanted to \u201ccharge me to do my appeal.\u201d We further note that nothing is before this court whereby Mr. Harris asks us to discharge Mr. Warren.\nMr. Warren, as counsel for petitioner, was obligated to lodge a record in the appellate court in order to preserve the appeal. See Langston v. State, 341 Ark. 739, 19 S.W.3d 619 (2000) (per curiam). Under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 6(a), once an attorney represents a defendant in a criminal matter, the attorney is obligated to continue representing the defendant until relieved by the appropriate court. See Hammon v. State, 347 Ark. 267, 65 S.W.3d 853 (2002). It is well settled that under no circumstances may an attorney who has not been relieved by the court abandon an appeal. Holland v. State, 358 Ark. 366, 190 S.W.3d 904 (2004) (per curiam). For these reasons, Mr. Warren\u2019s motion to be relieved as counsel is denied.\nPetition for writ of certiorari to complete the record granted. Motion to be relieved as counsel denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald E. Warren, for petitioner.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lee Mark HARRIS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 08-762\n288 S.W.3d 645\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 30, 2008\nDonald E. Warren, for petitioner.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0529-01",
  "first_page_order": 553,
  "last_page_order": 554
}