Young v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 18 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 699 S.W.2d 398,287 Ark. 361 |
| Parties | James C. YOUNG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. 85-184. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petitioner was tried in 1983 for a rape committed in 1979. When the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, the court declared a mistrial. Petitioner, who proceeded pro se at retrial in 1984, was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Young v. State, 14 Ark.App. 122, 685 S.W.2d 823 (1985). Petitioner now requests appointment of counsel and raises the following grounds for relief pursuant to our postconviction rule, Criminal Procedure Rule 37: (1) the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the trial court's rulings that the delay in bringing the charge against him was not prejudicial and that he voluntarily waived his right to counsel; (2) witnesses at the second trial gave testimony which conflicted with their testimony at the first trial; (3) the trial court erred when it overruled his objection to the testimony of rebuttal witness Wanda Dollar; (4) he was placed in double jeopardy by being tried a second time; and (5) he was charged and convicted under an ex post facto law.
Allegations 1, 2 and 3 are not grounds for relief under Rule 37. Rule 37 affords a remedy when the sentence in a case was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of this State or is "otherwise subject to collateral attack." Swisher v. State, 257 Ark. 24, 514 S.W.2d 218 (1974); Thacker v. Urban, 246 Ark. 956, 440 S.W.2d 553 (1969); Clark v. State, 242 Ark. 584, 414 S.W.2d 601 (1967). It is not available to reargue issues decided on appeal or to argue issues which could have been raised at trial and on the record on appeal. Swindler v. State, 272 Ark. 340, 617 S.W.2d 1 (1981); see also United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982).
Allegation 4 would be grounds for relief if it had merit since a violation of the constitutional safeguards against placing a defendant in double jeopardy is sufficient to void a conviction. Travis v. State, 286 Ark. 26, 688 S.W.2d 935 (1985). Retrying a defendant when the jury is unable to reach a verdict, however, is not automatically a violation of the constitutional provision against double jeopardy, and petitioner has provided no proof that there was any barrier to retrying him.
Petitioner pointed out in a pretrial motion to dismiss that in 1979 when the crime was committed, rape was classified as a class A felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than fifty years, or life. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1803 and 41-901 (Repl.1977). In 1981 the statutes were amended to classify the crime of rape as a class Y felony punishable by a term of not less than ten nor more than forty years, or life. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1803 and 41-901 (Supp.1983).
The substantive law in effect when the crime is committed governs; therefore, if petitioner had secured a ruling on his motion or raised the issue when the jury was instructed, he would have been entitled to a jury instruction on rape as a class A felony. Deaton v. State, 283 Ark. 79, 671 S.W.2d 175 (1984); Berry v. State, 278 Ark. 578, 647 S.W.2d 453 (1983). He did not do so, and the jury subsequently returned a sentence of fourteen years, which was within the statutory range for either a class A or a class Y felony. As a result, petitioner suffered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckley v. State
...sentence within the statutory range short of the maximum sentence cannot show prejudice from the sentence itself. See Young v. State, 287 Ark. 361, 699 S.W.2d 398 (1985). Next, Buckley raises eight assignments of error, although he concedes that he did not raise a contemporaneous objection ......
-
Young v. Lockhart, 88-2625
...122, 685 S.W.2d 823 (1985), and the Arkansas Supreme Court denied Young's petition for post-conviction relief, Young v. State, 287 Ark. 361, 699 S.W.2d 398 (1985). In January of 1989, Young filed the instant habeas corpus petition. After appointment of counsel, Young amended his petition, a......
-
Tate v. Pate
...a sentence within the statutory range short of the maximum sentence cannot show prejudice from the sentence. See Young v. State, 287 Ark. 361, 699 S.W.2d 398 (1985). Tate was sentenced to forty years in prison, The maximum" sentence he could have received was life in prison. Tate's sentence......
-
Petras v. State Of Ark.
...law in effect when a crime is allegedly committed controls how a criminal defendant is charged and tried on the offense. See Young v. State, 287 Ark. 361, 699 S.W.2d 398 (1985). 3.Relying on Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303 (Supp. 2003), the jury was instructed: A parent has a legal duty to preven......