Case Title: Strickland v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR97-501

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-02-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Otis STRICKLAND v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-501                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 12, 1998


1.   Criminal procedure -- right to speedy trial -- burden shifts
     upon showing prima facie violation of right. -- Under Rule
     28.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure an accused
     must be brought to trial within 12 months from the date of the
     arrest; when a defendant presents a prima facie case of a
     speedy-trial violation, the burden shifts to the State to
     explain the delay. 

2.   Criminal procedure -- prima facie case for speedy-trial
     violation clearly presented -- State responded with excludable
     periods. -- Where appellant clearly presented a prima facie
     case for a speedy-trial violation, in that he was arrested on
     October 13, 1994, and was tried 721 days later on October 3,
     1996, the State successfully presented to the trial court
     seven periods of time to be excluded under Rule 28.3, totaling
     452 days. 

3.   Appeal & error -- criminal cases -- issues must be presented
     at trial in order to preserve for review. -- In criminal
     cases, issues raised, including constitutional issues, must be
     presented to the trial court to preserve them for appeal; it
     is incumbent upon an appellant to obtain a ruling from the
     trial court in order to preserve an argument for appeal.
4.   Appeal & error -- trial court never ruled on objection to 
     exclusion of time period -- argument not preserved for review.
     -- The supreme court declined to consider appellant's argument
     concerning the first excluded period because appellant did not
     challenge this period at the hearing on his motion, nor did he
     contest the order excluding this period; because the trial
     court never ruled on an objection to the exclusion of this
     time period, the argument was not properly before the supreme
     court on appeal.

5.   Criminal procedure -- right to speedy trial -- second period
     properly excluded -- trial court's order sufficiently clear. -
     - The trial court excluded the second time period for good
     cause based on the fact that appellant's court appointed
     counsel could no longer represent appellant because he had
     been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor; the order was date
     specific where the trial court wrote that an arraignment would
     be scheduled for "February 26, 1996, to determine present
     ability to retain counsel or necessity of a court
     appointment"; the order was sufficiently clear to establish
     that, at a minimum, the period of time from February 1, 1996,
     to February 26, 1996, would be excluded.

6.   Criminal procedure -- right to speedy trial -- time excludable
     upon a motion by prosecutor when evidence material to State's
     case unavailable. -- Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure
     28.3(d)(1) allows for time to be excluded upon a motion by the
     prosecutor when evidence, material to the State's case, is
     unavailable; the State must exercise due diligence in
     obtaining the material evidence and there be reasonable
     grounds to believe that the evidence will be available at a
     later date; a witness's testimony is evidence for purposes of
     this rule; the two factors looked to in determining whether
     due diligence was exercised in obtaining an unavailable
     witness are the issuance of a subpoena for that witness and
     the lack of any effort to depose that witness. 

7.   Witnesses -- use of deposition testimony -- when unavailable
     witness's deposition testimony may be inadmissible. --      
     An unavailable witness's deposition testimony may be
     inadmissible where (1) the testimony is damaging to the
     defendant, (2) there is a need for the jury to be able to
     evaluate the credibility of the witness, and (3) there has not
     been a sufficient showing of unavailability; deposition
     testimony is not always unavailable, but it is important that
     the be able to jury assess the demeanor of a critical witness.

8.   Criminal procedure -- speedy-trial violation -- due diligence
     exercised in obtaining unavailable witness -- time period
     resulting from continuance properly excluded. -- Where the
     unavailable police investigator was clearly a material
     witness, it was important for both parties that the witness
     give his testimony in person, and upon learning of the
     witness's unavailability, a subpoena had been issued and was
     never released, the supreme court concluded that the State
     exercised due diligence in obtaining this material witness for
     trial; when it became apparent that the witness had a conflict
     and was unavailable, the trial court, in its discretion, had
     the authority to grant the continuance requested by the State,
     which it did; this time period was properly excluded for
     speedy-trial purposes.

     Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; Don Glover, Judge;
affirmed.
     Katharine C. Day, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.
     Appellant, Otis Strickland, was arrested on October 13, 1994,
and charged with four counts of delivery of a controlled substance. 
He was tried by a jury on October 3, 1996, found guilty, and
sentenced to three terms of forty years, to be served concurrently. 
Prior to trial, Strickland filed a timely motion to dismiss the
charges against him for violation of the speedy-trial rule.  A
hearing was held on the motion, and the trial judge denied it. 
Strickland appeals the denial of his motion to this court.  We
affirm the trial court.
     Strickland's claim on appeal is that his right to a speedy
trial under Rule 28.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure
has been violated.  Rule 28 is clear that an accused must be
brought to trial within 12 months from the date of the arrest.  See
Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.2.  When a defendant presents a prima facie
case of a speedy-trial violation, the burden shifts to the State to
explain the delay.  Duncan V. Wright, 318 Ark. 153, 883 S.W.2d 834
(1994); Meine v. State, 309 Ark. 124,