Smith v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 10 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 257 Ark. 781,520 S.W.2d 301 |
| Parties | Robert Daniel SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 74--159. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harold L. Hall, Public Defender by Robert L. Lowery, Deputy Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The sole issue on this appeal is whether appellant Robert Daniel Smith, an indigent, is entitled to credit for jail time served by him prior to conviction.
The record shows that appellant was held in custody from December 8, 1973, until the date of his trial before the court on January 11, 1974. The record also shows that appellant was sentenced and committed to the penitentiary for 15 years upon a charge of robbery with a firearm without being given the opportunity to show why he should not receive the full 15 year sentence.
Thus unlike Coleman v. State, 257 Ark. ---, 518 S.W.2d 487 (1975), the record shows appellant was not given the right of allocution and consequently, we cannot indulge in the presumption that the trial court did its duty according to law or that it exercised its discretion pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--2813 (Supp.1973), in denying jail time, Shelton v. State, 255 Ark. 932, 504 S.W.2d 348 (1974). Consequently, this case seems to be controlled by Smith v. State, 256 Ark. 425, 508 S.W.2d 54 (1974), where we pointed out that the denial of jail time solely because of the indigency of the defendant amounts to an unconstitutional discrimination based on wealth, absent some 'compelling government interest.'
Reversed and remanded with directions to give credit for jail time.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goff v. State
...defendant this opportunity for allocution is reversible error. Hill v. State, 331 Ark. 312, 962 S.W.2d 762 (1998); Smith v. State, 257 Ark. 781, 520 S.W.2d 301 (1975). However, we do not reverse for failure to allow allocution where there has been no objection to the failure below. Hill v. ......
-
Rogers v. State
...of the trial court to afford the right of allocution is error. Tate v. State, 258 Ark. 135, 524 S.W.2d 624 (1975) and Smith v. State, 257 Ark. 781, 520 S.W.2d 301 (1975). However, in this case petitioner was afforded the opportunity to address the court before sentencing, and we find the pr......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Coffelt
... ... There has not been either ... legal notice of the taking or [257 Ark. 781] entry by appellant, and there will not be as long as the injunction is in effect ... We cannot reverse the decree on an issue not raised ... GEORGE ROSE SMITH and BYRD, JJ., concur only in the denial of the rehearing ... JONES, J., would grant the rehearing ... --------------- ... 1 But see Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Union Planters Bank, 231 Ark. 907, 333 S.W.2d 904 ... 2 As pointed out in our original opinion in this case, ... ...
-
Izzard v. State
..."rubber stamp" the jury's verdict, they do not argue in this appeal that they were denied the right of allocution. See Smith v. State, 257 Ark. 781, 520 S.W.2d 301 (1975) (court reversed, finding the defendant was not accorded the right of allocution). Appellants here were afforded by law t......