 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Barney v. State, CACR04-622,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Basham v. State, CACR04-963,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court denied an attorney's motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders and Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j) on the ground that defendant's appeal of his convictions was without merit because an argument on appeal addressing evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) would not be wholly frivolous.
|
|||||
| Bedford v. State, CACR 04-706,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court denied defendant's counsel's motion to be relieved under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j) as an appeal would not be wholly frivolous; the written conditions of defendant's suspended imposition of sentence did not include payment of any fines or costs and State did not prove defendant cashed check with intent to defraud.
|
|||||
| Causer v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA05-464,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Cummings v. State, CACR05-125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1(c), defendant's right to speedy trial was not infringed as he was tried in circuit court within 12 months from date the case was appealed from municipal court. Counsel's motion to be relieved was granted under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(j) where appeal of defendant's conviction would be wholly without merit.
|
|||||
| Geren v. State, CACR04-594,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions and granted his attorney's motion to withdraw because none of the issues abstracted in the attorney's Anders' brief warranted a reversal of defendant's convictions, and defendant did not file any pro se points for reversal.
|
|||||
| Gillion v. State, CACR 04-999,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's probation was properly revoked under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(d) where defendant testified that he had not lived at the address he gave his probation officer, defendant had not reported to his probation officer, and he had not paid any of his fines and costs; any of these bases was sufficient to revoke probation.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, CACR04-668,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-310(c)(2)(c), testimony from defendant and probation officer that defendant failed to comply with terms and conditions of probation was admissible; trial court had authority to impose sentence upon revocation pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-301(d)(1) and (2)(A). Counsel's motion to be relieved under Anders was proper.
|
|||||
| Ison v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Co., CA05-313,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, January 11, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for insurance companies, declaring that they had no duty to defend, was affirmed because there was no initial permission actually given to the insured's son, and therefore, the "Hell or High Water" rule did not apply; the insured failed to demonstrate any issue of fact as to whether her son had implied permission to take the truck.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
