Case Title: State of Arkansas v. Carey L. Owens

Citation: 

Docket Number: 07-58

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Ne. 07-58

STATE OF ARKANSAS, Opbion Daweret ° SUN 28 2007

APPELLANT, | ppEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. PCN 92-1268,

HON. ALICE SPRINKLE GRAY,

JUDGE,

vs.

CAREY L. OWENS,
APPELLEE,

REVERSED & REMANDED.

 

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice

“The State of Arkansas brings this appeal fom the order ofthe Pulaski County Circuit
Cour, which granted appellee Carey L. Owen's motion to dismis for lack of jurisdiction.
“The State's sole point on appeals thatthe circuit court erroneously interpreted Arkansas
Code Annotated § 5-2-316 (Repl. 2006) a depriving the cour ofjursdicion. We reverse
and remand the circuit coun’s order of dismissal.

‘Owens was acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect forthe June 6, 1991 murder
of his Either and was committed to the Arkanss State Hospital on August 14, 1992, A
conditional-release order was initially entered on behalf of Owens on August 6, 1993. Since
that time, Owens has been the subject of several conditional-release orders and their
revocation oF modification, A review of the record reveals the following:

02/23/1994 Modified Order of Conditional Release
06/17/1994 Modified Order of Conditional Release

08/01/1994 Modified Order of Conditional Release

10/24/1994 Conditional Release

03/02/1995 Modified Order of Conditional Release

01/17/1996 Order Revoking Conditional Release

04/30/1997 Order of Conditional Release

06/09/2000 Order Revoking Conditional Release

12/06/2000 Order of Conditional Release

01/28/2004 Order of Modified Conditional Release

01/31/2005. Order Revoking Conditional Release

03/21/2006 Case Reopened for Act 911 Report

in March 2006, the Arkansas State Hospital petitioned the Pulaski County Circuit
Court for the conditional release of Owens. On March 31, 2006, the circuit court denied the
petition and found that Owens “still pose(d] a substantial risk of bodily injury to another
person or serious damage to property of another due to a present mental disease or defect.”
Its recorded on the circuit court docket sheet that an order of commitment was issued on
March 31, 2006.

The Arkansas State Hospital again petitioned the circuit court for the conditional
release of Owens in September of 2006. The circuit court granted the petition and entered
an order of conditional release on behalf of Owens on September 22, 2006, releasing him into

the custody of Mid South Health Systems/Jonesboro Transitional Unit. However, Owens

ea 07-38
alternatively moved the court for an outright dismissal in a letter to the court filed on
September 29, 2006, which memorialized his oral motion. Owens argued that, pursuant to
‘Atk. Code Ann. § 5-2-316, the court lost jurisdiction over this case in 1998, five years after
the initial order of conditional release entered on August of 1993. The court entered an order
of dismissal on behalf of Owens on October 25, 2006, stating thatthe court did not have
Jurisdiction because five years had lapsed since the initial order of conditional release. It is
from that order of dismissal thatthe State now appeal.

Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-2-316 (Repl. 2006), in effect at the time of the cour’s
‘order, provided in pertinent part:

{@)(1) any person conditionally released pursuant to § 5-2-314 or § 5-2-315
may apply to the court ordering the conditional release for discharge from or
‘modification ofthe order granting conditional release on the ground that he or
she may be discharged or the order modified without danger to himself or
herself or to the person or property of another.

{(b)Within five (5) years after the order pursuant to § 5-2-314 or § 5-2-315
granting conditional release, and after notice to the conditionally released
person and a hearing, ifthe court determines that the conditionally released
person has violated a condition of release or that for the safety of the
conditionally released person or for the safety of the person or property of
another his or her conditional release should be revoked, the court may:

(1) Modify a condition of release; oF

(2) Order the coriditionally released person to be committed to the custody
of the Director of the Arkansas State Hospital or another appropriate facility
subject to discharge or release only in accordance withthe procedure prescribed
in §5-2-315,

We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo because it is for this court to

determine the meaning ofa statute. See McMickle v. Grifin, _ Ark. __,__S.W.3d__

(Apr. 5, 2007). ‘The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the

3 07-58
legislature. Seed. Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we determine
legislative intent from the ordinary meaning ofthe language used. See id. In considering the
‘meaning ofa statute, we construe it just sit reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually
accepted meaning in common language. Se id. We construe the statue so that no word is
Jefe void, superfiuous or insignificant, and we give meaning and effect to every word in the
statute, if possible. See id

In the instant case, the circuit court found that section 5-2-316(b) instructs that a court
loses jurisdiction over a case five years after an intial order of conditional release. Owens
suggests that the commentary to the statute is quite significant in supporting his claim that the
plain and ordinary meaning of the statute is that jurisdiction always tolls after five years from
the initial conditional-release order. ‘The commentary prior to 2007" read in pertinent part:

Section (b) is limitation on the state's right to hospitalize a person subsequent

to 2 “conditional release.” Such hospitalization must take place within five

years of the initial conditional release order. ‘The Commission believed it

unwise and unfiir to subject an individual to the special commitment

procedures established by 5-2-314, -315 for an indefinite period of time.

Dangerous persons can always be hospitalized under the civil commitment

statutes.

While the commentary to a statute isa highly persuasive aid to construing the statute,
itisnot controlling over the statute's clear language. See Huffman v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline
& Disability Comm'n, 344 Ark. 274, 42 S.W.34 386 (2001). Here, we hold that the plain

language of the statute is clear and, even prior to amendments that were made during the

"We note that during the 2007 legislative session, amendments were made to
section 5-2-316 to specifically refute any confusion caused by the original commentary.

Po 07-38
2007 legislative session, cannot be interpreted to suggest that the court automatically loses
Jurisdiction over a case five years after an initial conditional-release order.
In addition, while the commentary may suggest that there i imitation on the State's

right to hospitalize and that hospitalization must occur within five years of the intial

 

conditional-release order, it does not suggest that jurisdiction is lost aftr five years. The plain
language of the statute simply instructs that within five years ofthe order pursuant to section,
5-2-314 or section 5-2-315 granting conditional release, the court may modify a condition
of the release or order commitment if the court determines that the conditionally released
person has violated 2 condition of release or if s for the safery of that person, the safety of
another person, or the safety ofanother person’s property. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-316(b).
Hid the legislature intended for the five years to an only fom the initial order of conditional
release, it could have easly sad so by including such language in the statute.

The basic question presented is what this statute means by “the order pursuant to § 5-2-

  

314 or § 5-2-315 granting conditional release.” 1d. (emphasis added). Owens urges that “the
order” references the initial order granting conditional release. However, a already noted,
the initial order and several subsequent orders in this case were revoked. The initial
congitional-release order was filed on August 6, 1993, and an order revoking that conditional
release was entered on January 17, 1996, within the five years permitted by the statute.

To revoke is “to annul by recalling or taking back.” Webster's Third Naw Intemational,
itionary 1944 (3d ed. 2002). A recognized synonym forthe term revoke is “cancel.” Id

‘See also Wells v. Hayes, 235 Ark. 891, 362 S.W.24 700 (1962) (wherein this court equated the

Ss 07-38
cancelled and

  

‘word cancel to revoke). Ifan initial order of conditional release is revoked, i
sno longer in effect. ‘Thus, it ean only be reasoned that a new order pursuant to section §-2-
314 orsection 5-2-315 must be then sought and that an individual would have to be granted
‘anew orderto again be conditionally released. Accordingly, “the order” described in section
5-2-316(b) could only be refering to the order of conditional release currently in effect, and
the circuit court would have the sathe options to modify that order or to commit the
conditionally released person if tis within five years. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-316(b).

A review ofthe record reveals that the most recent order granting conditional release
to Owens was entered on December 6, 2000. However, that order was revoked on January
31, 2005, within the five years allowed by the statute. Therefore, the circuit court had proper
jurisdiction over the casein September of 2006 when the Arkansas State Hospital petitioned
it yet again for Owens's conditional release. Moreover, the circuit court had proper
jurisdiction to enterits order of September 22, 2006, releasing Owens into the custody of Mid
South Health Systems/Jonesboro Transitional Unit.

To hold that Ark. Code Ann, § 5-2-316(b) limits a circuit court's jurisdiction to five
years after the initia order of conditional release could yield potentially devastating results in
these types of cases. For example, it would potentially allow for the release of an individual
‘who still poses a danger to themselves or others, and even forthe release ofan individual who
thas been recommitted since the first order of conditional release so long as the five years had
‘run, We will not interpreta statute to yield an absurd result that defies common sense, See

Hanwell-Williams v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Sens, 368 Ark. 183, __ S.W.3d__ (2006).

6 07-38
Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in its order dismissing the case for lack of
jurisdiction, and we reverse and remand,

Reversed and remanded.

1 07-38