Crook v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 20 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 290 Ark. 163,717 S.W.2d 803 |
| Parties | Michael Curtis CROOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 86-149. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lloyd R. Haynes, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Michael Curtis Crook, appeals from his conviction for possession of cocaine and argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge. The argument is meritorious. The Court of Appeals certified the case to this Court under Rule 29(1)(c) as it involves the interpretation of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 21.3.
On June 16, 1984, in a connected series of occurrences, a policeman saw appellant and another man smoking marijuana while they were sitting in a parked car. The two were arrested, and in a search of the car, a pistol was found in a holster. As the officer took the pistol out of the holster, a plastic bag containing cocaine fell out. In addition, it was discovered that the car was stolen.
On August 20, 1984, appellant was charged by information with theft by receiving (the car), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (the pistol). At that time, appellant was not charged with possession of a controlled substance (the cocaine). On February 15, 1985, seven months later, the information was amended to add the charge of possession of a controlled substance. Appellant was not notified at the time of the amended information.
The charge of felon in possession of a firearm was dismissed and, on February 28, 1985, appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced on the charge of theft by receiving.
It was not until July 22, 1985, nearly five months after his trial for theft by receiving that appellant received notice the Amended Information had been filed charging him with possession of a controlled substance. Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss the charge of possession of a controlled substance, based upon A.R.Cr.P. Rule 21.3, arguing that all offenses arising out of the June 16, 1984 series of occurrences should have been joined and tried at the same time. The motion was denied. Appellant waived a jury trial and, in a trial to the court was found guilty of possession of cocaine.
A.R.Cr.P. Rule 21.3 provides in pertinent part:
(c) A defendant who has been tried for one (1) offense may thereafter move to dismiss a charge for a related offense, unless a motion for joinder of these offenses was previously denied or the right of joinder was waived as provided in subsection (b). The motion to dismiss must be made prior to the second trial, and shall be granted unless the court determines that because the prosecuting attorney did not have sufficient evidence to warrant trying this offense at the time of the first trial, or for some other reason, the ends of justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dilday v. State, CR 06-976.
...the State should charge a criminal defendant in one case with all possible charges arising from one single episode. Crook v. State, 290 Ark. 163, 717 S.W.2d 803 (1986). In this regard, Ark. R.Crim. P. 21.3(c) provides as (c) A defendant who has been tried for one (1) offense may thereafter ......
-
Schoolfield v. State
...or for some other reason, the ends of justice would be defeated if the motion were granted.(Emphasis added.) See also Crook v. State , 290 Ark. 163, 717 S.W.2d 803 (1986) ; Cozzaglio v. State , 289 Ark. 33, 709 S.W.2d 70 (1986). Hence, Rule 21.3 has three requirements: the offenses must be ......
-
Martin v. State
...could not have been severed and the defendant tried separately as intimated by the majority. We held on October 20, in Crook v. State, 290 Ark. 163, 717 S.W.2d 803 (1986), that A.R.Cr.P. Rule 21 prohibited a separate later trial for a charge that arose out of the same The statement by the m......
- Jackson v. State
-
08 21 MOTION FOR JOINDER OF OFFENSES
...jurisdiction and venue of this Court and are [based on the same conduct] [arise out of the same alleged criminal episode]. Crook v. State, 290 Ark. 163, 717 S.W.2d 803 (1986). 3. The prosecuting attorney has sufficient evidence to justify trying both of the offenses at the same time. 4. The......