Upload data.csv

quiet-ml/98/data.csv

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+case
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, James Joseph Standley, Jr., by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, Billy J. Allred, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+Petitioner Keith Melvin Dubray, by his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, James R. Marschewski, has by affidavit admitted it was his fault that the record was not timely tendered.
+We find that the error, admittedly made by the criminal defendant’s attorney, is good cause to grant the motion for a rule on the clerk.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Avery Nathan Richardson, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.
+His attorney, Carl J. Madsen, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeal in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.
+Á copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.
+Purtle, J., not participating."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Sammy Joe Elmore, by his attorneys, John Wesley Hall, Jr., and Tom Hinds, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.
+The motion admits that the transcript of the case was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorneys admit that the transcript was filed late due to a mistake on their part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorneys for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeal in Criminal Cases.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"George Rose Smith, Justice.
+The two appellants, Curtis and Billy Howard, brothers, were charged with and convicted of aggravated robbery and theft of property. Curtis, as an habitual offender, was sentenced to consecutive terms of life and 30 years. Billy was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 and 5 years. In separate briefs they argue that owing to various gaps in the State’s proof it is insufficient to sustain the convictions. Viewing the evidence most favorably to the appellee, we find it amply sufficient. In narrating the events as the jury could have fairly believed them to have occurred we will refer to the two brothers by name, though some of the witnesses could only describe Curtis Howard as a short black man and Billy Howard as a tall black man.
+The robbery occurred early in the afternoon on February 4, 1983. The brothers first drove up to the Safeway store in Pine Bluff, in a black Mercury sedan owned by Curtis. After circling the store twice they parked, entered the store, came out, and drove away. They returned shortly and parked across the street. Curtis got out and went to the store, pulling on a ski mask. A witness who saw him before he was masked identified him later from a photograph.
+In the store Curtis, armed with a pistol, held up the manager and his assistant. Curtis was wearing a plaid shirt, blue jeans, and shoes with white rubber soles. He took about $3,500, mostly in packages of $20 bills. Curtis was seen as he ran from the store with a gun in one hand and a sack in the other. He ran across the street and got in the car, where Billy was waiting. A witness who saw them pursued them in his car. He saw a ski mask being thrown from the car. He followed the fleeing vehicle for two miles and wrote down the license number, which, after the two men had been apprehended, was found to be that of Curtis’s car.
+An off-duty officer heard a police-radio broadcast describing the crime and the car. The officer, reasoning that the robbers might have fled on Highway 79, jumped into his own unmarked car and drove south on that highway at a speed of 85m.p.h. or more. After 10.9 miles he overtook a car corresponding to the broadcast description, occupied by two men, and being driven at about 55 m.p.h. The officer radioed ahead for a road block and followed the car until it was halted at the road block.
+The two men in the car were Curtis and Billy Howard. Curtis had evidently changed clothes, for the plaid shirt and blue jeans were in the back seat, but he was still wearing shoes with white rubber soles. Curtis said he had $500 in his pocket but a search showed the amount to be only $54. Billy had $400 in his pocket in folded $20 bills, and another $79. The officers saw two $20 bills sticking out of the bottom of a car door. Curtis said that they had set out to buy a car and had put $ 1,000 in their car door because they were afraid they would be robbed in Pine Bluff. When the panel of the door was peeled back, the officers found $400 in $20 bills. There are other lesser incriminating circumstances we need not detail. Neither brother made a statement to the police or testified at the trial.
+In questioning the sufficiency of the State’s proof the appellants point out that the gun and most of the stolen money were never found and that there are minor discrepancies in the testimony for the prosecution. Granted, but there is nevertheless much substantial evidence of guilt. Curtis’s explanation that he and his brother had started out with cash to buy a car cannot be squared with his not knowing even approximately how much money was in his pocket or in the car door. A defendant’s false and improbable explanations of incriminating circumstances are admissible as proof of guilt. Surridge v. State, 279 Ark. 183, 650 S.W.2d 561 (1983). That the two brothers had $800 in bills of the same denomination as those taken is a further indication of guilt. The pistol and the rest of the money could easily have been disposed of had the two men stopped for a few seconds to hide those articles while their car was not being followed. The jury doubtless found it impossible to believe that Billy Howard could have been apprehended in the getaway car a few minutes after the robbery, some 15 miles away, with $400 in his pocket, and yet be innocent of any knowledge that his brother had just committed a planned robbery. There is an abundance of substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that both defendants were guilty participants in the crimes.
+Affirmed."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Michael Daniel Herrington, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, Bruce D. Switzer, admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Walter B. Mason, by his attorney, David L. Gibbons, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.
+The motion admits that the transcript of the case was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. The appellant’s former attorney, Ralph Lowe, admitted by affidavit attached to the motion that the transcript was filed late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Dennis Eugene Williford, by his attorney, Charles E. Hanks, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.
+The motion admits that the transcript of the case was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorney admits that the transcript was filed late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re; Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+Appellant, Brian Todd, by his attorney, Donald R. Huffman, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.
+The motion admits that the trial court’s order granting an extension of time was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorney admits that the order was filed late due to a mistake on his part.
+We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5,1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases. 265 Ark. 964.
+A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct."
+"Per Curiam.
+In March, 1981, petitioner pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, in the Circuit Court of Randolph County. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to 20 years imprisonment. The court also revoked petitioner’s suspended sentences in four other cases. Later in 1981, petitioner filed a petition to proceed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 and an amended petition. The petition and amended petition were denied after an evidentiary hearing. We affirmed. Virgin v. State, CR 81-134 (April 29, 1982).
+Petitioner subsequently filed numerous pro se petitions in circuit court, all of which raised grounds for postconviction relief. The exact number of the petitions is not contained in the record. The State moved in November, 1983, to dismiss the petitions, citing A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.2 which provides that all grounds for relief must be raised in the original or amended petition. The motion to dismiss was granted on November 16, 1983, and petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal. He also asked to be declared indigent so that the record could be prepared at public expense.
+Because of the number of petitions involved, the trial court appointed an attorney to review the files. It appears that counsel was not appointed to handle the appeal but only to sort out the file and report to the Court. Petitioner continued to represent himself, and there is nothing to indicate that he was led to believe that the attorney was appointed to take over the appeal.
+While the practice of appointing attorneys to review files may benefit the trial court, it is not a good practice to appoint counsel for a limited purpose, unless it is made clear to the appellant that counsel’s duties are limited. If there is any possibility that the appellant may be misled, the court must notify him of the appointment, setting out clearly the obligation of the attorney to the court and to the appellant. In the event that appellant is not fully informed of the limited appointment and can establish that he was led to rely on counsel to perfect the appeal, we must hold counsel responsible for taking whatever steps are necessary to protect the appellant’s best interests.
+Counsel here reported that petitioner was seeking to appeal the order to dismiss and that the record should be limited to items concerning the order and should not include the pro se petitions filed after the original petition was denied. He also petitioned the court to declare petitioner indigent. In June, 1984, well after the time for filing the record had elapsed, the trial court found petitioner indigent and ordered the record prepared, limiting it to items pertinent to the order to dismiss.
+The rules of appellate procedure require that a record be filed within 90 days of the date of notice of appeal, making the record in petitioner’s case due on March 5, 1984. The latest the record could have been timely filed even, with extensions of time from the trial court was seven months from the date of judgment, which was June 16, 1984. Ark. R. App. P. Rule 5 (b). The record was not tendered until September 6; hence, the pro se motion for rule on the clerk now before us.
+Without regard to the merits of the appeal which we do not consider now, we find good cause to permit the record to be filed. It is clear that petitioner attempted to comply with the rules of appellate procedure. Since the untimely tender of the record was not caused by any fault on his part, the motion is granted.
+Motion granted."