Bohannon v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 06 November 2014
• Docket Number: No. CV–14–264.,CV–14–264.
• Citation: 2014 Ark. 458,447 S.W.3d 585
• Parties: Krystal BOHANNON, Appellant v. Edward ROBINSON, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2014 Ark. 458

447 S.W.3d 585

Krystal BOHANNON, Appellant

v.Edward ROBINSON, Appellee.

No. CV–14–264.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Nov. 6, 2014.

Dustin A. Duke, Center for Arkansas Legal Services, for appellant.

No response.

Opinion

JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Krystal Bohannon, appeals an order of protection entered against her and the denial of her posttrial motion to set aside that order. Bohannon originally appealed to the court of appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of domestic abuse and contending that she was not afforded due process before the final order of protection was entered. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision. See Bohannon v. Robinson, 2014 Ark. App. 179 2014 WL 984341. Bohannon then petitioned this court for review, and we granted the petition. We reverse and remand to the circuit court and vacate the court of appeals' opinion.

On June 4, 2013, appellee, Edward Robinson, filed a petition for an order of protection on behalf of his three-month-old son, A.R., against Bohannon, A.R.'s mother. Robinson alleged in the petition that A.R. was entitled to an ex parte order of protection because Bohannon was scheduled to be released from incarceration within thirty days, and upon Bohannon's release there would be “an immediate and present danger of domestic abuse” to A.R. Robinson alleged that Bohannon presented a threat of physical harm to A.R. because on June 1, 2013, Bohannon “had an accident with three children¹ in the car and was arrested and taken to jail.” Robinson also alleged that Bohannon had committed previous acts of domestic violence because “[o]n May 8th she was driving under the influence of drugs with [A.R.] and three other children in the car. She hit a pole and almost hit a gas pump. She was arrested and charged with four counts of child endangerment.” On June 4, 2013, the circuit court entered an ex parte order of protection, effective until June 17, 2013, at 1:00 p.m. Bohannon was served with the petition and the order of protection on June 4, while she was in custody at the Jefferson County jail. The order awarded temporary custody of A.R. to Robinson, restrained Bohannon from committing any criminal act against A.R., prohibited Bohannon from initiating any contact with A.R., and ordered Bohannon to appear before the Pulaski County Circuit Court for a hearing on June 17, 2013, at 1:00 p.m.

Bohannon failed to appear at the hearing on June 17. Robinson appeared pro se and sought a permanent order of protection. He testified that Bohannon is his ex-girlfriend and A.R.'s mother. The following colloquy then took place between the court and Robinson:

The Court: Okay. And then—let me look at the allegations again. She's had an accident with the children in the vehicle and was charged with four counts of child endangerment. Is that right?

Robinson: Yes. Well, she's pending a trial date. I don't know if they're going to charge her.

The Court: My file reflects that she was served on June 4th in the Jefferson County detention facility or jail. And she is still there; is that right?

Robinson: Yes.

The Court: Are you seeking a permanent order?

Robinson: Yes, sir.

The circuit court then announced its ruling:

Based upon the petition, the Court finds sufficient evidence to establish domestic abuse. The Court will enter an order excluding Ms. Bohannon from your residence address.... I'm awarding your [sic] temporary custody of the minor child, A.R. I'm not setting visitation or support at this time. This order will remain in effect until June 16, 2016.

A final order of protection memorializing the circuit court's findings was entered on June 17, 2013. The next day, Bohannon was released from jail. On June 28, 2013, she filed a motion for new trial, or alternatively, a motion for relief from the order of protection, or alternatively, a motion to set aside the default judgment.

The circuit court held a hearing on Bohannon's posttrial motion on July 31, 2013. Bohannon argued that, although she was properly served with the ex parte order, she was unable to attend the June 17 hearing because she was incarcerated. Therefore, Bohannon contended, her due-process rights were violated because she was not afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend the allegations against her before the final order of protection was entered. Bohannon also argued that the order should be set aside because there was insufficient evidence to support the circuit court's finding of domestic abuse. Robinson also testified at the hearing and asked the circuit court to uphold the order of protection. Robinson stated that he believed that A.R. would be in danger if he were to return to Bohannon's custody.

The circuit court took the matter under advisement and in a letter opinion and a written order denied Bohannon's motion and stated that the final order of protection entered on June 17, 2013, remained in full force and effect. In her appeal to the court of appeals, Bohannon asserted that the circuit court erred in entering a final order of protection against her because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of domestic abuse and that, because she was not afforded due process, the circuit court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside the order of protection to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Relying on this court's decision in Wills v. Lacefield, 2011 Ark. 262, 2011 WL 2412904, the court of appeals held that it did not have the authority to review the issues Bohannon presented on appeal. Bohannon, 2014 Ark. App. 179, at 2, 2014 WL 984341. We granted Bohannon's petition for review to clarify any perceived inconsistencies in this court's decisions. When we grant a petition for review, we consider the appeal as though it had been originally filed in this court. E.g., Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2014 Ark. 50, at 1, 2014 WL 495124.

Bohannon contends that the circuit court erred in finding sufficient evidence of domestic abuse to warrant entering a final order of protection. We must first resolve the issue of whether this argument is preserved for our review. The court of appeals, citing this court's decision in Wills, concluded that Bohannon's sufficiency challenge was not preserved for review because she failed to raise the argument at, or prior to, the hearing on the final order of protection.

Bohannon, 2014 Ark. App. 179, at 2, 2014 WL 984341. Bohannon contends that our decision in Wills is at odds with other our other decisions in which we have held that, in a civil bench trial, a party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time on appeal.

Bohannon is correct. In a long line of cases, this court has held that, in a civil bench trial, a party who does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at trial does not waive the right to do so on appeal. See, e.g., Ingle v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 53, at 8, 431 S.W.3d 303, 307 ; Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchs. & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487, 496, 256 S.W.3d 496, 503 (2007) ; Oates v. Oates, 340 Ark. 431, 435, 10 S.W.3d 861, 864 (2000) ; Firstbank of Ark. v. Keeling, 312 Ark. 441, 445, 850 S.W.2d 310, 313 (1993) ; Sipes v. Munro, 287 Ark. 244, 246, 697 S.W.2d 905, 906 (1985) ; Bass v. Koller, 276 Ark. 93, 96, 632 S.W.2d 410, 412 (1982).

In Wills, however, we noted that Wills argued on appeal that (1) the order of protection was erroneous and unsupported by the record, (2) that the order of protection was void because it failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action, and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Lacefield an order of protection even though Wills had attempted to defend with his application for continuance, and we held that “Wills failed to make any of the objections, claims, or arguments he now makes on appeal at, or prior to, the hearing; therefore, these issues are not preserved for our review.” 2011 Ark. 262 at 3, 6, 2011 WL 2412904. Wills's argument that the order of protection was erroneous and unsupported by the record was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we erred in Wills when we failed to address that argument. In contrast to his other arguments on appeal, Wills did not waive his sufficiency challenge when he failed to raise that argument at, or prior to, the order-of-protection hearing. See Ingle, 2014 Ark. 53, at 7–8, 431 S.W.3d at 307 (stating that we were unable to address the issue of whether the circuit court's actions were not authorized by statute because the appellant raised the argument for the first time on appeal, but addressing the appellant's sufficiency argument raised for the first time on appeal because a party who does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a nonjury trial does not waive the right to do so on appeal). To the extent that our decision in Wills is inconsistent with our case law that a party in a civil bench trial may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time on appeal, it is overruled.

We now turn to the merits of Bohannon's sufficiency challenge. Bohannon argues that, in this case, there was no evidence that she committed an act of domestic abuse against A.R. or that he was in imminent danger of such abuse. Bohannon states that the only evidence presented at the hearing on the petition was Robinson's testimony that she was in an accident while driving, and her children were in the vehicle. She contends that this evidence does not support a finding of domestic abuse. In addition, Bohannon points out that, although Robinson alleged in the petition that she had been charged with four counts of child endangerment following a car accident, at the hearing on the petition, he testified that he was uncertain whether Bohannon had been charged with child endangerment, but that she had a pending trial date.

Our standard of review following a bench trial is whether the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous or clearly against the...