Holt v. State, CA

• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: COOPER; CRACRAFT, C.J., and CORBIN
• Citation: Holt v. State, 692 S.W.2d 265, 15 Ark.App. 269 (Ark. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 03 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. CA,CA
• Parties: Tommy HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 85-35.

Page 265

692 S.W.2d 265

15 Ark.App. 269

Tommy HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CA CR 85-35.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I.

July 3, 1985.

John R. Henry, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Connie Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

COOPER, Judge.

In this criminal case, the appellant was convicted in the Harrisburg Municipal Court of driving while intoxicated and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $800.00, and serve ten days in jail. His driver's license was suspended for one year, and he was required to attend a safety school. He appealed to Poinsett County Circuit Court where he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to serve six months in the county jail and to pay a fine of $1,500.00. From that decision, comes this appeal.

In the early morning hours of August 6, 1983 the appellant was observed at a police roadblock on a state highway in Poinsett County, Arkansas. Officer Randy Tombs of the Arkansas State Police testified that at approximately 12:40 A.M. he and another trooper were conducting the roadblock. Officer Tombs was in the process of issuing warning tickets to two motorcyclists when the appellant drove through the roadblock at a speed of approximately 25 to 30 miles per hour. He testified that another officer was in the middle of the road attempting to flag the appellant down. The vehicle stopped, and the appellant got out of the vehicle. The officer testified that he administered various field sobriety tests and, when asked by the trial judge, he stated that the appellant was intoxicated and that he was a danger to himself and to others as an operator of a vehicle. Phillip Fleming, a Poinsett County Deputy Sheriff, testified that he administered the breathalizer test, and that the appellant registered 0.13%. As no issue is raised on appeal as to whether the proof was sufficient to show intoxication, or that the appellant was in control of the vehicle, we will not detail the facts concerning those matters any further.

One issue raised on appeal concerns the legality of the appellant's arrest, and the focus of the appellant's argument is that the charges against the appellant should have been dismissed because the police officers had no legitimate reason to stop him. Therefore says the appellant, since there was no valid stop, nor probable cause to stop, his detention was illegal, and his subsequent arrest was invalid as violative of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The constitutional issue was presented to the trial court at the close of all the evidence when the appellant moved that the trial court dismiss the charges on the basis that the stop was illegal. The appellant did not file a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the roadblock, nor did he object when that evidence was submitted to the jury.

We decline to reach the merits of the issue raised by the appellant because the issue was not properly presented to the trial court. Although the appellant, on appeal, labels his motion a "motion to dismiss", in reality it was a motion to suppress the evidence coupled with a motion for a directed verdict. Motions to suppress are governed by Rule 16.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 16.2(b) requires that such a motion be timely filed, but not later than 10 days before trial, except that the trial court has discretion...