Walker v. State, CR83-51
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | ADKISSON |
| Citation | Walker v. State, 280 Ark. 17, 655 S.W.2d 370 (Ark. 1983) |
| Decision Date | 05 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. CR83-51,CR83-51 |
| Parties | Edward 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.
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:
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
-
Ashe v. State
... ... 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
... ... 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
...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
... ... 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 ... ...
-
08 48 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM FOR PRISONER TO TESTIFY
...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
...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......