Title: Roberts v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Sandra Colleen ROBERTS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-647                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered April 1, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- failure to present authority or convincing
     argument -- issue not considered -- rule consistent with
     presumption that statutes are constitutional. -- The supreme
     court does not consider even a constitutional argument where
     the appellant presents no citation to authority or convincing
     argument in its support, and it is not apparent without
     further research that the argument is well taken; this rule is
     consistent with the well-established principle that statutes
     are presumed to be constitutional and that the burden of
     proving otherwise rests with the party challenging the
     statute.

2.   Appeal & error -- merits of argument that State should have
     paid for additional blood-alcohol test not reached -- indigent
     status is mixed question of fact and law -- no finding or
     stipulation of indigence made. -- Where, without reference to
     any statute, appellant contended that she refused a second
     blood-alcohol test due to indigence, the supreme court did not
     reach the merits of the argument; the record did not establish
     that appellant refused an additional test because she lacked
     the funds to pay for it or that she was indigent at the time
     of her arrest; indigent status is a mixed question of fact and
     law; no finding of indigence was made by the trial court in
     this case, nor did the parties stipulate that appellant was
     indigent at the time of the arrest.  

3.   Appeal & error -- appellant failed to establish prejudice
     where legality of blood-alcohol test result not contested and
     no argument raised below demonstrating necessity for second
     test. -- Where appellant stipulated below that she did not
     contest the legality of the 0.05-percent blood-alcohol test
     result or the traffic stop and raised no argument
     demonstrating that a second test was necessary to an adequate
     defense, she failed to establish that she was prejudiced by
     the absence of an additional test.

4.   Appeal & error -- speculative contention not considered for
     first time on appeal. -- Where the record failed to reveal
     that appellant's speculative contention regarding a rising
     blood-alcohol level was raised before the trial court, the
     supreme court did not consider it for the first time on
     appeal. 

5.   Appeal & error -- argument based upon false premise was
     without merit. -- Appellant's argument that, due to alleged
     constitutional violations, her consent to take a blood-alcohol
     test that was administered by a law-enforcement officer was
     involuntarily given was based upon a false premise and was
     without merit.

6.   Contempt -- contempt arguments met by controlling case. --
     Where appellant argued that the trial court erred in finding
     her in contempt for her refusal to attend a pre-sentencing
     screening because her participation would have violated her
     constitutional right against self-incrimination and because
     she did not waive her right to a jury trial on the contempt
     charge, the supreme court noted that it had recently
     considered and rejected both arguments in the controlling case
     of Watson v. City of Fayetteville, 322 Ark. 324, 909 S.W.2d 637 (1995).

7.   Appeal & error -- illegal sentence -- allegation treated as
     problem of subject-matter jurisdiction -- reviewed whether or
     not objection was made. -- Although appellant did not raise
     below the issue of the trial court's lack of authority to
     impose a jail sentence for violation of Ark. Code Ann.  5-65-
     303 (Repl. 1993), she was not precluded from raising it on
     appeal because the supreme court treats an allegation of an
     illegal sentence as a problem of subject-matter jurisdiction
     that may be reviewed whether or not an objection was made in
     the trial court.

8.   Appeal & error -- jail sentence illegal on its face -- error
     relating only to punishment may be corrected in lieu of
     reversing and remanding -- sentence modified. -- Appellant's
     jail sentence was illegal on its face because the trial court
     lacked authority to impose it; where the trial court's error
     has nothing to do with the issue of culpability and relates
     only to punishment, the appellate court may correct the error
     in lieu of reversing and remanding the case; thus, the supreme
     court modified appellant's sentence for violating section 5-
     65-303 by deleting the suspended sentence of thirty days in
     jail with credit for one day served.


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial
District, First Division; William A. Storey, Judge; affirmed as
modified.
     Doug Norwood, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Gil Dudley, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.Associate Justice Donald L.
Corbin, 4-1-96   *ADVREP5*






SANDRA COLLEEN ROBERTS,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                     APPELLEE,



CR 95-647



APPEAL FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION,
NO. CR 94-932,
HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY, JUDGE


AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.






     Appellant, Sandra Colleen Roberts, appeals the order of the
Washington County Circuit Court finding her guilty of driving
without a license, of violating Arkansas Code Annotated  5-65-303
(Repl. 1993) of the "Underage Driving Under the Influence Law" 
codified at Arkansas Code Annotated  5-65-301 to -311 (Repl. 1993
& Supp. 1995) ("Underage DUI Law"), and of direct contempt of
court.  Appellant raises four arguments for reversal.  Jurisdiction
is properly in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(1)
and (3).  We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
     The parties stipulated below to the following facts.  On
September 25, 1993, appellant was arrested at a roadblock for
driving under the influence and having no driver's license.  At
that time, appellant was aged sixteen years, unemployed, and a
high-school student.  Approximately fifty-six minutes after the
traffic stop, appellant registered 0.05% blood alcohol after taking
a certified BAC DataMaster test.  Appellant does not contest the
legality of the traffic stop or the results of the blood-alcohol
test.  
                     1.  Public-service work
     Appellant's first argument assails the constitutionality of
section 5-65-306, the public-service work provision of the Underage
DUI Law.  Section 5-65-306 provides as follows:
          Any underage person who pleads guilty or nolo
     contendere or is found guilty of violating  5-65-303
     shall be ordered by the court to perform public service
     work of the type and for the duration as deemed
     appropriate by the court.
    
Appellant summarily argues, without citation to authority, that
section 5-65-306 violates our state constitutional due-process
guarantee, Ark. Const. art. 2,  8, because it authorizes a trial
court to pronounce a penalty of indefinite duration, and violates
our state constitutional equal-protection guarantee, Ark. Const.
art. 2,  18, because it applies only to underage persons.  The
trial court sentenced appellant to perform thirty hours of public
service for the substance-abuse program of the Salvation Army in
Fayetteville.  
     We do not reach the merits of this argument.  We do not
consider an argument, even a constitutional one, when the appellant
presents no citation to authority or convincing argument in its
support and it is not apparent without further research that the
argument is well taken.  E.g., Cook v. State, 321 Ark. 641, 906 S.W.2d 681 (1995); Stevens v. State, 319 Ark. 640,