State v. Hurst
| Decision Date | 05 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 752 S.W.2d 749,296 Ark. 132 |
| Parties | STATE of Arkansas, Appellant, v. James HURST, Appellee. 88-20. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen., Steve Clark, Little Rock, for appellant.
Tom O'Hern, Little Rock, Art Allen, North Little Rock, for appellee.
The issue in this case is whether the State can appeal from a dismissal by a circuit court of a petition to revoke a felon's probation. We conclude that it cannot and dismiss the appeal.
The appellee, James Hurst, pleaded guilty to robbery charges and was sentenced to five years probation, a $100.00 fine plus costs, fifty hours community service, one year supervised probation, and one day in prison. Subsequently, the State petitioned to revoke his probation on the grounds that he had committed the crimes of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and theft of property. At the revocation hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition with prejudice because the State had failed to have Hurst examined at the state hospital pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-305(b)(4) (1987) within the sixty-day limit of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-310 (1987).
The State attempts to appeal from the trial court's order. Although the issue as to whether the State can appeal from this order was not raised by the parties, we have a duty to raise this question as it is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. See Roy v. International Multifoods Corp., 268 Ark. 958, 597 S.W.2d 129 (1980). See also Hall v. Lunsford, 292 Ark. 655, 732 S.W.2d 141 (1987).
As a general rule, the State has no right to appeal except as conferred by constitution or rule of criminal procedure. See State v. Bibby, 47 Ala.App. 240, 252 So.2d 662 (1971). See also U.S. v. Burroughs, 289 U.S. 159, 53 S.Ct. 574, 77 L.Ed. 1096 (1933).
Ark.R.Crim.P. 36.10 governs appeals by the State. Rule 36.10(a) provides that the State may appeal from a pre-trial order in a felony prosecution (1) granting a motion under Rule 16.2 to suppress seized evidence or (2) suppressing a defendant's confession. Rule 36.10(b) permits the State to appeal from non- interlocutory orders following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution.
Rule 36.10 does not empower the State to appeal from a dismissal by a circuit court of a petition to revoke a felon's probation. Rule 36.10(a) is inapplicable because an order dismissing or granting a petition to revoke is not a pre-trial order in a felony prosecution. Furthermore, such an order is not one granting a motion to suppress seized evidence or one suppressing a defendant's confession. Rule 36.10(b) does not apply since this appeal does not follow a misdemeanor or felony prosecution, but rather a revocation of probation proceeding. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
I believe majority is mistaken in concluding that Ark.R.Crim.P. 36.10(b) does not apply because "this appeal does not follow a misdemeanor or felony prosecution, but rather a revocation of probation proceeding." A revocation of probation proceeding is a continuation of the original criminal prosecution. 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1618(11); McGuire v. State, 200 Tenn. 315, 292 S.W.2d 190 (1956). As such, the trial court's orders of dismissal was a final order, from which the state has filed a notice of appeal, within the plain language and intent of the rule's drafters. To conclude that this appeal is not governed by Rule 36.10(b) means that a revocation proceeding is an extraordinary proceeding for which new and specialized rules of procedure will be required. In my view our present statutory framework offers sufficient ground for the state's appeal.
Not only does Rule 36.10 authorize the state to appeal from a revocation proceeding, but Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-112 (1987), states in part:
(a) Where an appeal on behalf of the state is desired, the prosecuting attorney shall pray the appeal during the term at which the decision is rendered, whereupon the clerk shall ... transmit [the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Puddy v. Gillam
...the appellate court raises sua sponte. See, e.g., Cigna Ins. Co. v. Brisson, 294 Ark. 504, 744 S.W.2d 716 (1988); State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). Likewise, the trial court has a duty to determine whether a case presented to it is within its subject matter jurisdiction. ......
-
State v. Tipton
...As a general rule, the State has no right to appeal except as conferred by constitution or rule of criminal procedure. State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). Ark.R.Crim.P. 36.10(b) and (c) authorizes the State to appeal following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution if "......
-
State v. Edwards
...as it is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. City of Little Rock v. Tibbett, 301 Ark. 376, 784 S.W.2d 163 (1990); State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). The State submits this appeal on the basis that it entails an interpretation of Ark.R.Crim.P. 28.3(c), which provides t......
-
Richie v. State, CA
...the trial court's order is void, we do not reach the issue of whether the State can cross-appeal from the order. See State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). Unquestionably, at least one of the felonies underlying the capital murder of Dorothy Mullen must be vacated, Martin v. S......