Daniel v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 11 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Parties | Zachary DANIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 98-75. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Andrew R. Miller, Rogers, for appellant.
Winston Bryant, Atty. Gen., Vada Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On August 18, 1997, Zachary Daniel, a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for the offenses of sexual abuse in the first degree and failure to appear, and an order to that effect was filed of record the following day. A disposition hearing was set for August 27, 1997. The behavior comprising the basis for the sexual-abuse charge occurred on June 24, 1996, when appellant was fourteen years old. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the order from which appellant appeals is not a final appealable order. We agree; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
The requirement that an order be final to be appealable is a jurisdictional requirement. K.W. v. State, 327 Ark. 205, 937 S.W.2d 658 (1997). The purpose of the finality requirement is to avoid piecemeal litigation. Id. An order is final if it dismisses the parties from the court, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject matter in controversy; the order must put the judge's directive into execution, ending the litigation, or a separable branch of it. Id.
Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal on September 18, 1997, appealing the August 19 adjudication order. However, the August 19 order specifically stated that appellant was to return to court on August 27, 1997, for a disposition hearing. By agreement of the parties, the disposition hearing was continued to September 8, 1997, at which time appellant was committed to the Arkansas State Hospital/Sexual Offender Program. Appellant argues, without citation to any authority, that the September 8 hearing and disposition order were collateral matters and that the August 19 order constituted a final order. We disagree. When an order provides for a subsequent hearing, that provision prevents the order from being a final order. See Kelly v. Kelly, 310 Ark. 244, 835 S.W.2d 869 (1992). There was no final, appealable order in the present case until the entry of the September 8, 1997, disposition order.
In his response to the State's motion to dismiss, appellant attached a copy of the September 8 order, and we deemed the record to be supplemented with this order. However, as the State properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mann v. Pierce
...is not designated in the notice of appeal. See, e.g. , Brown v. United Bank , 2014 Ark. App. 643, 448 S.W.3d 726 ; Daniel v. State , 64 Ark. App. 98, 983 S.W.2d 146 (1998). It further observes that these decisions appear to be inconsistent with this court's opinion in Vimy Ridge Municipal W......
-
Farmer v. State
...McDonald v. State , 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004) ; Rawe v. Rawe , 100 Ark. App. 90, 264 S.W.3d 549 (2007) ; Daniel v. State , 64 Ark. App. 98, 983 S.W.2d 146 (1998) ). Because the notices of appeal do not reference the order denying Farmer's motion for a new trial—the only occasion o......
-
Aka v. Jefferson Hospital Association et al, 99-1366
...v. Tribble, 276 Ark. 316, 637 S.W.2d 526 (1982). Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Shipman, supra, and Daniel v. State, 64 Ark. App. 98, 983 S.W.2d 146 (1998), cited in the dissent, are plainly distinguishable. The criminal contempt order not specified in the notice of appeal in Ship......
-
Lindsey v. Green, 09–453.
...of appeal is not properly before an appellate court. See Wright v. State, 359 Ark. 418, 198 S.W.3d 537 (2004) (citing Daniel v. State, 64 Ark.App. 98, 983 S.W.2d 146 (1998)). 5 Therefore, we find that Green has failed to file an effective notice of appeal and that the cross-appeal should be......