TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rogers v. State

Steven Robert ROGERS v. STATE of Arkansas

Rogers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 461 (Ark. 1986)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 16, 1986
Docket
No. CR 85-199
Judges
Hays
Citations
711 S.W.2d 461289 Ark. 2571986 Ark. LEXIS 1956

Opinion of the Court — Hays

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Steele Hays, Justice. Steven Robert Rogers was found guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of kidnapping. Pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001, the court instructed the jury that Rogers had been convicted of three prior felonies and the jury fixed tjie sentences at twenty years on each count, which the court ordered to be served consecutively. We affirm the judgment.

Appellant first contends the convictions are void because the Information failed to comply with Article 7, Section 49 of our Constitution, which provides that the “[i]ndictments shall conclude: ‘Against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas’.” This information does conclude with the appropriate language, but, as appellant points out, several of our cases have held that the language must follow each count, which was not done here. Hall v. Lackmond, 50 Ark. 113 , 6 S.W. 510 (1887); Williams v. State, 47 Ark. 230 , 1 S.W. 149 (1886); State v. Hazle, 20 Ark. 156 , (1859). However, this objection was not presented to the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980).

The two remaining arguments are: the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of a certified copy of a docket sheet to prove one of appellant’s prior felony convictions and counsel’s failure to object to the introduction of the docket sheet constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.

These arguments, like the first, are also subject to summary denial. There was no objection to the introduction of the docket sheet and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised initially by appeal. Sumlin v. State, 273 Ark. 185 , 617 S.W.2d 372 (1981).

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1987: 11988: 11991: 11994: 11998: 119872026peak 1987 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ward v. State733 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. 1987)
  2. Wetherington v. State889 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. 1994)
  3. Prince v. State805 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1991)
  4. McDougald v. State748 S.W.2d 340 (Ark. 1988)
  5. McNeese v. State976 S.W.2d 373 (Ark. 1998)

Most recent

  1. McNeese v. State976 S.W.2d 373 (Ark. 1998)
  2. Wetherington v. State889 S.W.2d 34 (Ark. 1994)
  3. Prince v. State805 S.W.2d 46 (Ark. 1991)
  4. McDougald v. State748 S.W.2d 340 (Ark. 1988)
  5. Ward v. State733 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980) 328
Sumlin v. State, 617 S.W.2d 372 (Ark. 1981) 47
State v. Hazle, 20 Ark. 156 (1859) 9
Williams v. State, 47 Ark. 230 (1886) 8
Hall v. Lackmond, 50 Ark. 113 (1887) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list