Brown v. State, 5566
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5566,5566 |
| Citation | 481 S.W.2d 366,252 Ark. 846 |
| Parties | Val BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by John D. Bridgforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
A jury convicted appellant of the crime of escape and assessed his penalty at one year in the State Penitentiary. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to 5 years in the penitentiary pursuant to the habitualcriminal act. On appeal the appellant contends for reversal that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.
The State adduced testimony from a deputy sheriff, a custodian of the local county jail, that the appellant was incarcerated there serving a one year's sentence on a previous escape charge. In the absence of any objection to this testimony as not being the best evidence of appellant's conviction and sentence, we are of the view that this testimony was sufficient to meet the requirement of Ark.Stat.Annot. 41--3513 (1971 Supp.) to establish that appellant was 'lawfully imprisoned' in the county jail. See, also, Harding & Hildebrandt v. State, 248 Ark. 1240, 455 S.W.2d 695 (1970).
The State further adduced evidence that the appellant was in the local county jail at approximately 5 p.m. when the prisoners were fed and that about 10:30 p.m. it was discovered that a hasp, which fastened the outer door of the cell, was broken and the appellant and other prisoners were missing. Later that night appellant was apprehended in the locality. Appellant testified that he left the jail, following the escape of other inmates, for the purpose of notifying the local officers about the jail break. The conflicting versions of appellant leaving his place of confinement present a question of fact for the jury to determine as to appellant's intent. Cassady v. State, 247 Ark. 690, 447 S.W.2d 144 (1969). We think there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.
Appellant, also, asserts that the court erred in refusing his motion for a continuance. The appellant had received continuances at two previous terms of court when represented by an attorney of his own choice. Five days before this trial date he secured the services of a different attorney. It was urged that another continuance was necessary for trial preparation by his new counsel and, also, to secure the attendance of a necessary witness. No verified motion setting forth any statutory grounds to support appellant's motion for continuance was filed.
A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and we do not reverse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellingburg v. State
...habitual criminal act previously and this contention is without merit. Ridgeway v. State, 251 Ark. 157, 472 S.W.2d 108; Brown v. State, 252 Ark. 846, 481 S.W.2d 366; Poe v. State, 251 Ark. 35, 470 S.W.2d 818. See also, Rimes v. State, 251 Ark. 678, 474 S.W.2d Appellant makes several content......
-
Westbrook v. State
...our prior holding that the granting of a continuance is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Brown v. State, 252 Ark. 846, 481 S.W.2d 366 (1972); Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W.2d 869 (1970); and Walker v. State, 100 Ark. 180, 139 S.W. 1139 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN......
-
Wolf's v. State
...dealing with eve of trial appointment or retention of counsel, we have upheld a denial of a motion for continuance. In Brown v. State, 252 Ark. 846, 481 S.W.2d 366 (1972), we held there was no prejudice demonstrated where the motion for continuance was denied when the defendant himself chan......
-
Thacker v. State
...the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and that its action will be disturbed on appeal only in case of abuse. Brown v. State, 252 Ark. 846, 481 S.W.2d 366; Nash v. State, 248 Ark. 323, 451 S.W.2d 869; Striplin v. State, 100 Ark. 132, 139 S.W. 1128; Walker v. State, 100 Ark. 180, 1......