City of Clinton v. Jones
| Decision Date | 23 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-62,90-62 |
| Citation | 302 Ark. 109,787 S.W.2d 242 |
| Parties | CITY OF CLINTON, Appellant, v. Dora P. JONES, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John C. Aldworth, Marshall, for appellant.
The Municipal Court of Clinton found appellee, Dora Jones, guilty of public intoxication and leaving the scene of an accident. The findings in the judgment of conviction recite, among other things, that the appellee had habitually abused herself with librium, alcohol and codeine to the extent that she was a danger to herself, and, in lieu of a sentence, she was committed to an alcohol treatment facility for not less than thirty (30) nor more than ninety (90) days. See Ark.Code Ann. § 20-64-709 (1987). Her appeal bond was set at $500.00. The hearing, judgment, and fixing of the amount of bond all occurred late in the afternoon of Friday, March 3, 1989. Appellee did not make bond. Later that evening she was transported to the treatment facility.
Six days later, on Thursday, March 9, while still in the recovery facility, and with neither making the appeal bond nor seeking a reduction of bond, she filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court. The allegations of the petition were that (a) no evidence was introduced in municipal court to show that appellee habitually abused herself with alcohol or drugs and (b) petitioner was denied her right to appeal because she could not make bond over the weekend of Friday night, March 3, and Saturday and Sunday, March 4 and 5. The trial court issued the writ on the day the petition was filed, Thursday, March 9, and made it returnable on March 13. After the hearing on the 13th, the circuit court ordered that appellee be released because (a) no evidence was introduced in municipal court to show she habitually abused alcohol or drugs and (b) she was denied her right to appeal. The City of Clinton later found out about the ex parte proceeding and sought to intervene and have the circuit court order vacated. The circuit court refused to allow the intervention. The City "appeals" the circuit court's order releasing the appellee pursuant to the Writ. The order releasing the appellee was erroneously issued.
First, we address the matter of whether we will hear this "appeal." The proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. Taylor v. Moore, 99 Ark. 412, 138 S.W. 634 (1911). However, even though parties have said they "appeal," we have treated the matter as one to be reviewed by certiorari. Ex Parte Holdaway, 105 Ark. 1, 150 S.W. 123 (1912). See also Von Luce v. Rankin, 267 Ark. 34, 588 S.W.2d 445 (1979). We so treat this case. Further, the general rule is that one who was not a party to the habeas corpus proceeding below is ordinarily not entitled to apply for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's finding; however, there are exceptions to the general rule, and one of them is that the State may seek review when a defendant is released. Ex Parte Boles, 88 Ark. 388, 114 S.W. 918 (1908). Here, the State seeks review because a defendant has been released from a hospital confinement ordered in lieu of sentence without posting the appeal bond. Accordingly, we will exercise jurisdiction and hear this matter.
The circuit court issued the writ of habeas corpus. Such a writ is to be granted only when a person is (1) detained without lawful authority or (2) imprisoned when by law he is entitled to bail. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (1987). The writ of habeas corpus is not to be used as a substitute for appeal. In emphasizing that it is not to be used as a substitute for appeal, we have said that in habeas corpus proceedings it is conclusively presumed that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Baird v. Bray, 125 Ark. 511, 189 S.W. 657 (1916).
In discussing the first ground for issuance of the writ, we have said that a person is detained without lawful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Sheriff of Dallas County, Ark.
...As Mr. Simpson does not seek the writ on the ground that he is entitled to bail, see Renton v. State, supra; City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 111, 787 S.W.2d 242, 244 (1990), the question is whether the claim of a pretrial detainee of detention in violation of Rule 28.1(a) suffices a......
-
McConaughy v. Lockhart, 92-427
..."appeals" this decision, the proper manner to bring up review of such proceedings is by writ of certiorari. See City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990). However, we will treat such an appeal as a matter to be reviewed by certiorari. As such, we deny the writ of certior......
-
Review of Habeas Corpus Proceedings, In re
...than certiorari, and we directed that henceforth review of habeas corpus proceedings would be by appeal. In City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990), without reference to Fulks v. Walker, we said certiorari was the proper means of review of habeas corpus proceedings. We......
-
Kozal v. Board of Correction, 92-1093
...The proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990); Taylor v. Moore, 99 Ark. 412, 138 S.W. 634 (1911). It is clear, however, that the habeas corpus writ is granted only w......