Title: Walker v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Leslie Lee WALKER v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-172                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 4, 1997


1.   Constitutional law -- judgment of conviction reversed for
     insufficient evidence -- Double Jeopardy Clause precludes
     second trial. -- The Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a second
     trial when a judgment of conviction is reversed for
     insufficiency of the evidence. 

2.   Evidence -- nonjury trial -- challenge to sufficiency of
     evidence preserved without directed-verdict motion. --
     Although appellant did not move for a directed verdict below,
     his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was preserved
     for appeal because it is not necessary to make such a motion
     during a nonjury trial.  

3.   Evidence -- challenge to sufficiency of -- factors on review.
     --  In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the
     evidence, the supreme court views the evidence in a light most
     favorable to the State and considers only that evidence which
     supports the verdict; evidence, whether direct or
     circumstantial, is sufficient to support a conviction if it is
     forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a
     conclusion one way or the other; the supreme court does not,
     however, weigh the evidence presented at trial, as this is a
     matter for the factfinder, nor will it weigh the credibility
     of the witnesses. 

3.   Evidence -- sufficient evidence supported appellant's
     conviction for second-degree assault. -- In viewing the
     evidence presented in a light most favorable to the State, the
     supreme court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence
     to support the trial court's conclusion that appellant had
     committed the act of second-degree assault; appellant's
     actions in pushing the teacher's aide from behind were, at the
     very least, reckless, and they created a substantial risk that
     she would be physically injured; the fact that appellant's
     actions created a substantial risk that she could have fallen
     on the concrete and injured herself was sufficient to sustain
     the trial court's findings. 

4.   Juveniles -- Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to
     delinquency proceedings -- Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 applicable in
     juvenile proceedings -- when such claim will be considered. --
     The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to juvenile
     delinquency proceedings pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 
     9-27-325(f) (Supp. 1995); Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 is applicable to
     juvenile proceedings pursuant to section 9-27-325(f), but the
     remedy under that rule is available to such juvenile
     defendants only when they are in custody; the supreme court
     has generally recognized that claims of ineffective assistance
     of counsel are cognizable on direct appeal, providing that the
     appellant first presented the claim to the trial court during
     the trial or in a motion for a new trial; such a claim will
     not be considered unless the surrounding facts and
     circumstances were fully developed either during the trial or
     during other hearings conducted by the trial court.

5.   Appeal & error -- issue not raised at trial -- insufficient
     information with which to assess trial counsel's performance.
     -- Appellant's claim of counsel's ineffectiveness was not
     reviewed on appeal because appellant failed to raise the issue
     in the trial court, either at the time of the adjudication or
     in a subsequent motion for new trial; the facts and
     circumstances surrounding the claim were not fully developed
     by the trial court and so the supreme court could not assess
     whether trial counsel's performance fell below that standard
     required by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
     Constitution; as the trial court is in the best position to
     evaluate trial counsel's performance and competency, an order
     reciting its findings is necessary to enable the supreme court
     to conduct a meaningful review of the claim.

6.   Appeal & error -- arguments not raised at trial -- arguments
     not reached on appeal -- even constitutional arguments must be
     raised below. -- Where appellant failed to raise the arguments
     in the trial court, the supreme court did not reach them on
     appeal; the supreme court will not address any claims, even
     constitutional claims, raised for the first time on appeal. 

7.   Appeal & error -- defendant agreed with ruling at trial --
     could not attack ruling on appeal. -- Where, at the show cause
     hearing, appellant's counsel not only failed to object, he
     agreed with the court's decision to resentence appellant at
     that time, and the trial court's order reflected that
     appellant was resentenced at the request of his mother and his
     attorney, appellant could not attack the ruling on appeal; a
     defendant may not agree with a ruling by the trial court and
     then attack that ruling on appeal. 

8.   Criminal law -- allegations of void or illegal sentences
     reviewed whether or not objection made at trial. -- The
     supreme court treats allegations of void or illegal sentences
     similar to problems of subject-matter jurisdiction in that it
     reviews such allegations whether or not an objection was made
     in the trial court; a sentence is void when the trial court
     lacks the authority to impose it.

9.   Criminal law -- appellant did not challenge trial court's
     authority to impose sentence -- claim that sentence was
     excessive should have been raised below. -- Where appellant
     did not assert that the trial court was without authority to
     order that appellant be sent to the training school; rather,
     he argued only that the trial court's sentence was excessive
     for a first offender, his argument should not be reached on
     appeal because he failed to raise it in the trial court.


     Appeal from Sevier Chancery Court, Juvenile Division; Bob
Lowery, Chancellor; affirmed.
     Sharon Carden Street and Cheryl Vogelpohl Upshaw, for
appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellant Leslie Lee Walker appeals the order of the Sevier
County Chancery Court, Juvenile Division, adjudicating him
delinquent and placing him in the custody of the Division of Youth
Services, with the recommendation that he be placed in the training
school.  Our jurisdiction of this appeal is pursuant to Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 1-2(a)(17)(iv) & (v).  Appellant raises four points for
reversal.  We affirm.
     On April 11, 1996, a petition was filed in juvenile court
alleging that Appellant had committed second-degree assault against
a teacher's aide at the Lockesburg school.  Prior to the hearing,
the juvenile court granted Appellant's motion for a mental
evaluation to determine his mental competency to stand trial and to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.  A psychological report
dated October 3, 1996, reflected that Appellant understood the
proceedings against him, was able to assist in his own defense, was
aware of the criminality of his conduct, and could have conformed
his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the
alleged incident.  Appellant was diagnosed as having attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder of mixed type, arithmetic learning
disability, learning disorder of written expression, and conduct
disorder of oppositional type.
     A hearing was held on October 29, 1996, and Appellant was
adjudicated delinquent for having committed the offense of second-
degree assault.  Appellant was placed on probation for a period of
one year and was ordered to enroll and complete the Arkansas
National Guard's Civilian Student Training Program (CSTP). 
Additionally, Appellant was ordered to stay away from the
Lockesburg school campus and to pay thirty-five dollars court
costs.  The juvenile judge noted in the order that if Appellant
should commit any offenses in the future, he should be charged as
an adult in circuit court.  
     Subsequent to the hearing, the trial court became aware that
Appellant's mother had refused to sign the necessary Power of
Attorney for Appellant's placement in CSTP.  Upon motion of the
prosecutor, the trial court set a show cause hearing for
Appellant's mother for November 21, 1996.  A hearing was held and
the resulting order reflected that the trial court resentenced
Appellant at the request of his mother and his attorney, placing
him in the custody of the Division of Youth Services.  The order
reflected further that upon his release from the Division of Youth
Services, Appellant was to be placed in the custody of the
Department of Human Services, with the recommendation that he be
placed in the training school.  It is from this order that
Appellant appeals. 
     We first consider Appellant's argument regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence, as the double jeopardy clause
precludes a second trial when a judgment of conviction is reversed
for insufficiency of the evidence.  Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158,
___ S.W.2d ___ (1997).  Although Appellant did not move for a
directed verdict below, his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence is preserved for appeal, as it is not necessary to make
such a motion during a nonjury trial.  See Mackey v. State, 329
Ark. 229, 947 S.W.2d 359 (1997); Strickland v. State, 322 Ark. 312,