Title: State v. Tien

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Tien  STATE of Arkansas v. TIEN Ngoc Doan and Trung Do CR 96-348 ___ S.W.2d ___ Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 23, 1996 Appeal & error -- motion to affirm trial court's order affirmed -- interlocutory appeal dismissed. -- Where, in its appeal of a pretrial order suppressing appellees' confessions, the State first obtained a seven-day clerk's extension, and then the supreme court granted the State six extensions of time in which to file its brief, designating the last a final extension; where the State's brief was not filed by the specified deadline; and where, in a per curiam opinion handed down well before the final deadline granted in the instant case, the supreme court stated that it would not entertain appeals by the State when the State's brief is not filed in accordance with the specified deadline in the final extension, the supreme court affirmed the trial court's pretrial order granting appellees' motion to suppress their statements and dismissed the State's interlocutory appeal. Motion to Affirm; granted. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att'y Gen., for appellant. Sam Sexton III and Jeanne Ann Whitmire, for appellees. Per Curiam. The appellees in this case, Tien Ngoc Doan and Trung Do, move to affirm the pretrial order of the Sebastian County Circuit Court suppressing their confessions. The State appealed the order, and on March 18, 1996, the record was filed with the clerk of this court. The State's original brief was due on April 27, 1996. According to the records of the Clerk of this court, a seven-day clerk's extension was first obtained and then this court granted the State six extensions of time in which to file its brief: (1) May 6, 1996; (2) May 22, 1996; (3) June 10, 1996; (4) June 21, 1996; (5) July 2, 1996, and (6) July 13, 1996. The extension granted on July 13, 1996, was designated a final extension and required that the State's brief be filed by July 26, 1996. The State's brief was not filed by that deadline. On June 3, 1996, this court issued a per curiam opinion in a case where the State had obtained nine extensions in which to file its brief in a State appeal. State v. Parkman, 325 Ark. 35, 923 S.W.2d 281 (1996). In Parkman, we noted that the State had obtained three extensions beyond the date of the final extension. We concluded that if the State's brief was not filed by a date certain, the appeal would be dismissed. The brief was not filed by that date, and the appeal was dismissed on June 24, 1996. We stated in Parkman: Henceforth, we will not entertain appeals by the State when the State's brief is not filed in accordance with the specified deadline in the final extension granted by this Court. 325 Ark. at 36, 923 S.W.2d at 282. The Attorney General in the case before us has filed a response to the appellees' motion to affirm in which it is stated that the staff attorney assigned to the case has been replaced. The Attorney General states that he cannot explain why the original counsel missed the deadline and apologizes for the lapse. We note, nonetheless, that the Parkman per curiam opinion was handed down on June 3, 1996, which was well before the final deadline granted by this court in the instant case of July 26, 1996. In accordance with our clear directive in the Parkman per curiam, we affirm the order of the trial court and dismiss the State's appeal. Glaze, J., dissents. TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice Appellees Tien Ngoc Doan and Trung Do are charged with the murder of Thavone Mousom and with engaging in violent criminal group activity. Appellees retained an Oklahoma attorney who first advised them to refuse to give any statement. After charges were actually filed against appellees, they executed a waiver-of-rights form on advice of their attorney and gave incriminating statements. Doan and Do then plead guilty, but the trial court later set aside their pleas because their attorney was not licensed in Arkansas. The trial court granted appellees' motion to suppress their statements, and the State filed this interlocutory appeal. In this appeal, the Attorney General's office has been granted six extensions for a total of eighty-nine days in order to file its brief. The last extension was designated final extension. The State has now tendered its brief, but the majority court has refused the brief and dismissed the State's appeal. I write to point out that this court has never dismissed an appeal in a criminal case because a brief was tendered late. Over the past two years, this court has routinely allowed belated briefs to be filed by appellants who were convicted defendants with counsel. For some reason, the court now unfairly dismisses the State's appeal because it was eighty-nine days late. In 1994 and 1995, this court allowed defendants, who were convicted and appealed, to file briefs that were later than eighty-nine days and after final extensions were granted. Examples of those cases are as follows: 1994 1995 Case No. Days Case No. Days CR94-0030 105 CR95-0150 134 CR94-0113 180 CR95-0296 111 CR94-0238 180 CR95-0408 149 CR94-0267 134 CR95-0546 120 CR94-0322 156 CR95-0645 150 CR94-0358 209 CR95-0711 90 CR94-0558 90 CR95-1027 120 CR94-0590 92 CR95-1039 138 CR94-0838 90 CR95-1309 118 CR94-0848 202 CR94-0995 270 CR94-1183 120 CR94-1340 112 CR94-1389 99 No reason exists for treating the State more harshly when it files a late brief than a convicted defendant when his or her attorney is late. Nonetheless, under today's decision, when an attorney representing a convicted defendant is late, as described above, this court still accepts the brief, but not so, if the attorney represents the State. Obviously, it is the public, not the State's attorney, who will unjustifiably suffer the consequences. In simple terms, the majority court's per curiam is wrong.