Warren v. State, CR76-209
| Decision Date | 28 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. CR76-209,No. 2,CR76-209,2 |
| Citation | 261 Ark. 173,547 S.W.2d 392 |
| Parties | Evelyn Jean WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Thomas G. Montgomery, West Memphis, for appellant.
William J. Clinton, Atty. Gen., by Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Evelyn Jean Warren was convicted of the crime of robbery with a firearm by a jury on February 21, 1975, and sentenced to a term of 5 years for the offense of robbery and 10 years for the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Judgment subsequently was entered and appellant failed to timely file her appeal. On November 10, 1975, this Court denied appellant's motion for Rule on the Clerk to file transcript but granted her the right to proceed under Rules of Crim.Proc., Rule 1 (1976) (now Criminal Rule 37) for post-conviction relief. On August 20, 1976, the trial court issued its order denying relief under Rule 1. It is from this denial appeal is taken.
For reversal appellant first contends the trial court erred in allowing the victim to identify her at trial. Randy Williams, the prosecuting witness, testified that on September 7, 1974, at approximately 9 p. m. while on his way home he stopped behind two other cars at a stop sign in West Memphis. Williams stated that while he was stopped appellant walked up to his car, tapped on his window and demanded money. The witness testified the intersection was well lighted and that he rolled down the window, whereupon appellant pulled a gun on him and threatened to "blow his head off" if he did not give her money. Being extremely frightened appellant gave her $20 which he saw her put in a small coin purse she kept inside a larger purse, then she laughed and walked away.
Williams further testified he has 20/20 vision and that since the area was well lighted and appellant was standing only a foot or so away from him he got a good look at her for a minute to a minute and a half and was able to give a detailed description to the police. From this good description the police were able to locate appellant within a few hours. Williams stated he next saw appellant the morning following this incident at the police station and that when he saw her she was wearing the same clothes worn when she robbed him the evening before. He further stated he was absolutely positive appellant was the person who robbed him and so identified her to the police.
Subsequently Williams identified appellant at trial, but no mention was made of the pre-trial identification at the police station. Appellant contends this was unconstitutional because she had no counsel at the police station and because there was no hearing prior to trial to determine the validity of her waiver of counsel or the identification. This was not error since defendant had not at that time been charged with a crime. A person's right to counsel attaches only when adversary proceedings have been brought against the party. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L.Ed.2d 411 (1972).
Furthermore, appellant's counsel did not make the motion to suppress until minutes before trial, and the motion was not accompanied by a statement of legal reasons therefor. Thus there was no compliance with Rule 2 of the Uniform Rules for Circuit, Chancery and Probate Courts which requires filing of motions such as this 10 days before trial. Under the circumstances here it was not error to deny the motion since counsel for appellant had been appointed more than two months prior to trial. Moreover, appellant's counsel made no objection when the victim identified Ms. Warren at the trial. We also note that appellant knowingly signed a waiver of right to counsel prior to the pre-trial identification. 1
Here, it is clear under the totality of the circumstances there was no substantial likelihood the prosecuting witness misidentified appellant as his robber, since (1) the witness had an excellent opportunity to view appellant during the commission of the crime; (2) the witness paid a great deal of attention during the crime; (3) he gave a most accurate description of appellant to the police, noting her unusual facial characteristic, i. e., the broken or missing tooth; and (4) the witness was most certain and positive of his identification of appellant.
Appellant's next two allegations of error deal with the admissibility of certain evidence during the course of the trial. We find these contentions without merit. In Swisher v. State, 257 Ark. 24, 514 S.W.2d 218 (1974), we said:
Criminal Procedure Rule 1 was not designed to permit review of mere error in the conduct of a trial and it is not a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayes v. State
...of the accused by the witness. Hinton v. State, 260 Ark. 42, 537 S.W.2d 800; Sims v. State, 258 Ark. 940, 530 S.W.2d 182; Warren v. State, 261 Ark. 173, 547 S.W.2d 392; McCraw v. State, 262 Ark. 707, 561 S.W.2d 71. The central question is whether, viewing the totality of the circumstances, ......
-
Matthews v. State
...the trial court properly overruled both motions, §§ 13A-8-41, -43 Code of Alabama 1975 (Supp.1977); See generally Warren v. State, 261 Ark. 173, 547 S.W.2d 392 (1977). II Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment, contending that it is vague a......
-
Harkness v. State, CR
...and the trial court's ruling permitting the in-court identification and hold that it passes the test laid down in Warren v. State, 261 Ark. 173, 547 S.W.2d 392 (1977). A police officer was allowed to read to the jury a statement that the victim said Harkness made to her when he attempted to......
-
Rodgers v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 81-188
...no prejudice to appellant; in fact the motion went to a matter of form rather than substance. To the same effect are: Warren v. State, 261 Ark. 173, 547 S.W.2d 392 (1977); and City of Benton v. Connerly, 261 Ark. 262, 547 S.W.2d 432 (1977). Here, on the trial date, immediately before trial,......