State v. Washington
| Decision Date | 08 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | State v. Washington, 273 Ark. 82, 617 S.W.2d 3 (Ark. 1981) |
| Parties | STATE of Arkansas, Appellant, v. Charles WASHINGTON and L. C. Washington, Appellees. 81-5. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Leslie M. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellant.
Lessenberry & Carpenter by Thomas M. Carpenter, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissing charges of first degree battery against appellees, Charles and L. C. Washington, for failure of the State to bring them to trial within three terms of court.
The order of dismissal was entered on October 27, 1980, pursuant to Rule 30.1(a), Ark.Rules Crim.Proc., Ark.Stat.Ann., Vol. 4A (Repl.1977), which provides:
(A)defendant not brought to trial before the running of the time for trial, as extended by excluded periods, shall be absolutely discharged.This discharge shall constitute an absolute bar to prosecution....
Since each appellee was on bail or lawfully at liberty prior to the date charges were filed in circuit court, the speedy trial provisions of Art. VIII, Rules 27.1 30.2, Ark.Rules Crim.Proc., Ark.Stat.Ann., Vol. 4A (Repl.1977) began to run from the time of arrest and require that the appellees be brought to trial before the end of the third full term of court after arrest.Wade v. State, 264 Ark. 320, 571 S.W.2d 231(1978).
The terms of court in Pulaski County begin on the first Monday in March and the fourth Monday in September.Ark.Stat.Ann. § 22-310(Repl.1962).Thus, the relevant court terms are:
March 5, 1979
September 24, 1979
March 3, 1980
Appellees were arrested sometime prior to the March 5, 1979, term of the Pulaski County Circuit Court.Therefore, the trial must have been held before September 22, 1980.
The State contends that this case should not have been dismissed for a denial of the right to a speedy trial as there were two excludable periods of time within the three terms of court which had run one period based on the unavailability for trial of the appellees and the second period based on the time between the State's entry of a nolle prosequi and the time the charges were refiled.
First, the State argues that the third term of court following arrest was extended by the period of delay resulting from appellees' absence or unavailability pursuant to Rule 28.3(e) which provides:
The period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the defendant.A defendant shall be considered absent whenever his whereabouts are unknown.A defendant shall also be considered unavailable whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for the trial cannot be obtained or he resists being returned to the state for trial.
The burden is on the State to prove an excludable period is legally justified.State v. Lewis, 268 Ark. 359, 596 S.W.2d 697(1980).To do this the State relies primarily on the docket sheet notes kept by the trial judge:
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Case No.: 79-0801 State of Arkansas
vs. Battery, First Degree
L. C. Washington
Charles Washington
Date of Filing: May 1, 1979
Date of Orders Orders of Court
------------------ ----------------------------------------
08/25/79 Scheduled 10/3/79, 8:30 a.m. to
sound the docket on L. C. Washington
08/25/79 Charles Washington scheduled
9/12/79, 8:30 a.m. for P&A
09/12/79 Pass to October 11, 1979 Charles
failed to appear on recognizance bond
and sheriff has (not) served warrant
on L. C. Washington
10/03/79 Pass to 11/8/79 for report from sheriff
11/08/79 L. C. Washington, Charles Washington--
Pass to 12/13/79 for clerk to issue
warrant and for sheriff to report
L. C. to surrender today
Passed to 12/13/79.
11/16/79 Tom Carpenter represents defendant;
waive reading of information; plea
of not guilty; jury trial; pass both
defendants to 12/13/79 at 8:30 for
P&A of L. C. and trial setting.
Charles to remain on recognizance
bond.
12/13/79 L. C. Washington--Waives reading of
information. Plea of not guilty is
entered. Jury trial requested
3/5/80. Pretrial February 14, 1980.
02/14/80 Pretrial hearing--negotiations
extended to 2/28/80.
02/27/80 Nolle Prosequi Order filed.
10/07/80 Motion to dismiss for lack of speedy
trial filed.
The record reflects that this case was filed in circuit court on May 1, 1979, and a bench warrant was issued for the arrest of L. C. Washington(L.C.).At this time L.C. was free on a $2,500 bond which had been made while the case was pending in Little Rock Municipal Court.The State claims L.C.'s time for trial was extended since he was unavailable from August 25, 1979, when he failed to appear "to sound the docket" until he appeared on November 16, 1979.Neither the docket sheet nor any other information in the record reflects that L.C. or his bondsman were notified of any date on which he was required to appear.
Charges were also filed against Charles Washington(Charles) in circuit court on May 1, 1979, but no bench warrant was issued for him.Charles had been recognized for all subsequent appearances by the Little Rock Municipal Court which was the examining court.
The State claims Charles's time for trial was extended since he was unavailable from September 12, 1979, when he failed to appear for his scheduled plea and arraignment until he appeared on November 16, 1979.The court apparently attempted to notify Charles of this date by way of a letter addressed to him at 18211/2 South Valentine in Little Rock.This address is not given by the State on the back of the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Curley v. State
...v. Sebastian, 428 F.Supp. 967, 973 (W.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 562 F.2d 211 (2d Cir.1977), aff'd, 578 F.2d 1372 (1978); 14 State v. Washington, 273 Ark. 82, 617 S.W.2d 3 (1981); 15 People v. Sanders, 86 Ill.App.3d 457, 459, 41 Ill.Dec. 453, 407 N.E.2d 951 (1980); State v. Ransom, 233 Kan. 185, 6......
-
Webb v. State
...sought to evade speedy trial requirement and finding that the State had good cause for dismissal and refiling); State v. Washington , 273 Ark. 82, 617 S.W.2d 3, 5 (1981) (same); People v. Sanders , 86 Ill.App.3d 457, 41 Ill.Dec. 453, 407 N.E.2d 951, 960 (1980) ("[T]he real issue, when a cha......
-
Jones v. State
...Ark. R.Crim. P. 28.1. Further, the burden is on the State to bring the case to trial within the required time. State v. Washington, 273 Ark. 82, 617 S.W.2d 3 (1981). The defendant is under no obligation to demand a trial in order to preserve his right to a speedy trial. Burmingham, supra; J......
-
Caulkins v. Crabtree
...showing that Mr. Caulkins was absent or unavailable from September 10 until November 15, 1993. 2. Nolle prosequi In Washington v. State, 273 Ark. 82, 617 S.W.2d 3 (1981), we said the State had attempted to use a nolle prosequi to bypass other provisions of Rule 28.3 and thus avoid a dismiss......