Walker v. State, CR83-51

CourtArkansas Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtADKISSON
CitationWalker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (Ark. 1983)
Decision Date05 July 1983
Docket NumberNo. CR83-51,CR83-51
PartiesEdward Lewis WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

Holmes, Holmes & Trafford, Pine Bluff, for appellant.

Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Leslie M. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

ADKISSON, Chief Justice.

After a trial by jury, appellant was convicted of three counts of forgery in the second degree and one count of theft of property. The Jefferson County Circuit Court sentenced him as a habitual offender to 20 years on the first count of forgery, 10 years on the second count, 20 years on the third count, and 10 years for theft of property. The sentences were to run consecutively. On appeal from this conviction we affirm.

The testimony at trial reflects that the victim knew appellant and allowed him to stay with him on the night of February 20, 1982. The victim left for work the next morning, and when he returned that afternoon, appellant was gone. The victim then noticed that some of his clothing and his wallet, which contained a Department of Correction I.D., were missing, and later he realized that his checkbook was also gone. He notified the bank that his checkbook was missing on February 23, 1982.

On February 21, 1982, appellant cashed an $85 check drawn on the account of the victim and on February 24 appellant withdrew $350 from the victim's savings account. On February 26 he attempted to withdraw another $425 from the savings account. He fled when the bank clerk took a long time to complete the transaction, leaving the withdrawal slip and the victim's Department of Correction I.D. with the clerk. Bank employees gave the police a description of appellant, and he was picked up in the vicinity of the bank shortly thereafter.

For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in not granting a continuance of his trial because one of appellant's material witnesses was not present. The record reflects that this witness was in prison at the time of the trial and that a subpoena was served on him by the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office on November 19, 1982. It was returned to the Jefferson County Circuit Clerk on November 29, 1982, the day of the trial.

At trial, the following exchange took place in chambers regarding this witness:

MR. HOLMES: [Defense Attorney] [I] don't have that many witnesses and that is one thing now I wanted to get in to the record what one witness would testify that was subpoenaed who is not here and apparently he's down at Cummins and this subpoena was sent down to ...

MR. BROWN: [Deputy Prosecuting Attorney] Who's that?

MR. HOLMES: Stanley Anderson. I would like to dictate into the record what this witness would testify to in the event he was here in court.

MR. BROWN: That's fine with me. Go ahead.

MR. HOLMES: If Stanley Anderson were here to testify, according to the defendant, he states that Stanley Anderson was present at a time when [the victim] stated, 'Whatever I've got is yours. Here is a passbook or here is the checks. Go cash a check if you need some money. Go get some money.' He states that Stanley Anderson is a witness to this occurrence that would verify that the defendant had permission to cash these checks.

MR. BROWN: As I understand it, Mr. Anderson is in the State pen. Down at Cummins?

MR. HOLMES: I would imagine because I sent the subpoena to Star City, ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex

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

vLex
4 cases
  • Ashe v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • April 16, 1997
    ... ... Dumond v. State, 290 Ark. 595, 599, 721 S.W.2d 663, 665 (1986) (citing Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 20, 655 S.W.2d 370, 372 (1983)). "It is the duty of a party desiring relief to apprise the trial court of the proper basis ... ...
  • Dumond v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1986
    ... ... The appellant must make known to the court the action he wishes the court to take. Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (1983). Here the appellant's initial objection and request related only to being entitled to see the report ... ...
  • Walker v. Lockhart
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 16, 1986
    ...had not requested a continuance at trial and therefore had waived Walker's right to raise the issue on appeal. Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (1983). Walker next sought post conviction relief under Ark.R.Crim.P. 37. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Co......
  • Johnson v. State, CR
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1985
    ... ... whose testimony would be material ...         Such a petition was never filed and no showing of materiality was made. In Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (1983), the trial court refused a continuance where a witness was in prison and was not present for the trial ... ...
2 books & journal articles
  • 08 48 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM FOR PRISONER TO TESTIFY
    • United States
    • Arkansas Bar Association Form Books Arkansas Form Book - Complete (includes 2024 Supplement) Chapter 8 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    • Invalid date
    ...Code Ann. § 16-43-214. This is the method of producing a witness from prison to testify; a mere subpoena is insufficient. Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (1983). 2. The defendant has a right to compulsory production of witnesses under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitutio......
  • 08 49 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM FOR PRISONER TO TESTIFY
    • United States
    • Arkansas Bar Association Form Books Arkansas Form Book - Complete (includes 2024 Supplement) Chapter 8 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    • Invalid date
    ...Code Ann. § 16-43-214. This is the method of producing a witness from prison to testify; a mere subpoena is insufficient. Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (1983). 2. Many courts issue these writs automatically on counsel's mere presentation of the writ, taking it as a representa......