# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 19 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Cal vi n C arri ck

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Mi ke Beeb e, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Gov ern or of Ark an sa s; Dus ti n M cDan ie l, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Att or ne y Gene ral of Ark an sa s; Larry Cran e, In hi s of fic ia l ca pa ci ty as Cl erk for Pu la sk i Co un ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 31 , 20 14 Fil ed : Ap ril 7, 2 01 5 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, MELLOY , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Cal vi n Carr ic k ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's F ed . R . C iv . P . 1 2( b) (6 ) di sm is sa l 1
of hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 co m pl ai nt . W e affi rm

.

The Ci ty of Lit tl e Ro ck is su ed Carr ic k th ree cit at io ns fo r vi ol at in g m un ic ip al

or di na nc es

. In Ark an sa s, su ch ci ta ti on s, if co nt es te d, are in it ia ll y tri ed to a jud ge an d

can b e a p p e al ed to a jury in th e st at e tri al co ur t. Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -9 6- 11 2.
Carr ic k co nt es te d th e ci ta ti on s an d was fo un d gu il ty of two vi ol at io ns fo ll owi ng th e in it ia l be nc h tri al

. The co ur t im po se d no pu ni sh m en t. See Carr ic k v. St at e, 20 13 Ark

. App

. 58 7, at 1 20 13 W L 57 44 91 8, at *1 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 20 13 ). Carr ic k th en ap pe al ed

to a jury. To i ns ti tu te th e jury pr oc eed in gs , Carr ic k ha d to pa y a $1 50 fil in g fee as well as a $1 5 "t ech no lo gy fee," bo th of whi ch are no n- refu nd ab le in who le or in pa rt. See Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 21 -6 -4 03 (a)( 2 ) ( f i l in g fee, no n- refu nd ab le ); id

. § 21 -6

- 41 6( a)(2 ) (te ch no lo gy fee, no n- refu nd ab le ). Afte r an in it ia l m is tri al
, th e cas e ag ai ns t Carr ic k was di sm is se d, an d Carr ic k so ug ht a refu nd of hi s fil in g an d te ch no lo gy fees

. The st at e co ur t refu se d to refu nd th e fees
, an d Carr ic k ap pe al ed th e de ni al of a refu nd

. The Ar k an sa s Co ur t of App eal s affi rm ed
, 20 13 Ark

. App

. 58 7, at 3, 20 13 W L
57 44 91 8, at *3 , and th e Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t d en ie d fu rth er re vi ew.

Carr ic k ne xt fil ed th e pr es en t 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of th e Ark an sa s Co ns ti tu ti on , Ark an sa s st a t u t e s, an d th e Fi fth
, Si xt h, an d Fo ur te en th
Am en dm en ts of t he U.S. Con st it ut io n. Th e d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d re li ef.

Carr ic k ap pe ars to as se rt on ap pe al to ou r co ur t th at hi s fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s were vi ol at ed be cau se th e no n- refu nd ab le fees he pa id to in st it ut e th e st at e jury

pr oc eed in gs se rv ed as im

pe rm is si bl e ba rri ers to th e ex erci se of hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a jury tri al

. His al le ga ti on s o f Fi fth an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t vi ol at io ns

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-ap pe ar to be d u e p r o c e s s c la im s an ci ll ary to hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m

. Fo r th e 2

reas on s se t fo rth be lo w, we co nc lu de th at Carr ic k ha d no Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to

a jury tri al reg ard in g hi s al le ge d or di na nc e vi ol at io ns

. As su ch
, hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t cl ai m as we ll as h is an ci ll ary du e-p ro ces s cl ai m s fa il

.

The rig ht to a jury tri al as pr ov id e d i n th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ap pl ie s to "s eri ou s" of

fen se s as th at te rm is de fin ed in Bl an to n v. Ci ty of Nor th Las Veg as , 48 9
U.S. 53 8, 54 1 (1 98 9) ("I t ha s lo ng be en se tt le d th at 'th ere is a cat eg or y of pe tt y cri m es

or of fen se s whi ch is no t su bjec t to th e Si xt h Am en dm en t jury tri al pr ov i si on .'" (q uo ti ng Dun can v. Lou is ia na , 39 1 U.S. 14 5, 15 9 (1 96 8) )). In Bl an to n, th e Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at , to de te rm in e whe th er an of fen se is se rio us , co ur ts sh ou ld lo ok

to th e m ax im

um pe na lt y th e rel ev an t le gi sl at iv e bo dy pr es cri be d fo r th e of fen se

. Id

. The Co ur t in di cat ed th at de pr iv at io n of li b e r t y th ro ug h in carc erat io n is m at eri al ly
di ffer en t an d m or e se ve re th an ot he r fo rm s of pu ni sh m en t an d th at , if an of fen se do es

no t ca rry a m ax im um ter m of i m pr is on m en t o f gr eat er tha n si x m on th s, the cri m e is

pr es um pt iv el y no t se rio us

. Id

. at 54 2– 43

. Thi s pr es um pt io n can be r e b u t t ed by a sh owi ng of so m e ad di ti on al co ns eq ue nc es or pu ni sh m en ts of a di ffer en t na tu re an d
of su ffi ci en t se ve rit y to in di cat e th at th e le gi sl at ur e de em ed th e of fen se se rio us

. Id

. at 54 2.

In Bl an to n, th e of

fen se at is su e was a DUI of fen se wit h a st at ut or y m ax im um
te rm of im pr is on m en t of si x m on th s. The Co ur t fo un d th e of fen se pr es um

pt iv el y no nse rio us an d co ns id ered th e ex is te nc e of se ve ral ad di ti on al fact or s in su ffi ci en t to m ak e th e of fen se se rio us

. The se fact or s in cl ud ed a 90 -d ay li cen se su sp en si on , a m an da to ry

m in im um te rm of im

pr is on m en t, an d th e po ss ib il it y of co m m un it y se rv ic e in
of fen de r-i de nt ifyin g ga rb

. The Co ur t fo un d th e po ss ib il it y of a $1 ,00 0 fin e—e ve n in

To th e ex te nt he arg ue s on ap pe al th at hi s cas e in vo lv ed vi ol at io ns of th e 2 Ark an sa s C on st it ut io n o r Ark an sa s st at ut es , we fin d no erro r in th e jud gm en t o f th e di st ric t co ur t reject in g su ch arg um en ts

. See 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. W e a d d r e s s in de ta il

on ly Carric k's arg um en ts all eg in g fe de ral co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

.
-3

-ad di ti on to th es e ot he r fo rm s of pu ni sh m en t— in su ffi ci en t to m ak e th e pr es um pt iv el y

no n- se rio us of

fen se se rio us

. The Co ur t st at ed
, "As fo r th e po ss ib le $1 ,00 0 fin e, it is
well be lo w th e $5 ,00 0 se t by Co ng res s in it s m os t re c e n t d e f i n it io n of a 'pe tt y ' of fen se ." Id . at 5 44 –4 5 (q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 1 (19 82 ed ., Sup p. IV))

.

Turn i n g t o t h e fact s of Carr ic k's cas e, th e pa rti es do no t id en ti fy th e sp eci fic

m un ic ip al or di na nc es fo r whi ch Carr ic k rece iv ed ci ta ti on s. The Ark a n s as Co ur t of App eal s di d no t ci te th e or di na nc es at is su e, bu t de sc rib ed th e two or di na nc es Carr ic k

was fo un d to ha ve vi ol at ed as "h ig h gr as s an d th e fai lu re to m ai nt ai n a ga rag e or ot he r

acce ss or y st ru ct ur e.” The de fen da nt s as se rt th at th e m un ic ip al or di na nc e vi ol at io ns
at is su e co ul d no t ha ve res ul te d in a te rm of im pr is on m en t, a nd Carr ic k do es no t di sp ut e th is as se rti on

. Fu rth er, th e Ark a n s as Co de pr ov id es th at m un ic ip al

co rp or at io ns do "n ot ha ve po wer t o i nf li ct an y fin e or pe na lt y " gr eat er t ha n $ 1,0 00

. See Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 14 -5 5- 50 4. Giv en th es e li m it at io ns an d co nc es si on s, Carr ic k
in it ia ll y co ul d ha ve face d, as a st at ut or y m ax im um , a fin e of $1 ,00 0 pe r vi ol at io n fo r th re e a ll eg ed vi ol at io ns

. He do es no t su gg es t th e ci ta ti on s ex po se d hi m to an y ad di ti on al pe na lt ie s o f an y so rt. 3

W e co nc lu de on th es e fact s th at Carr ic k was no t ch arg ed wit h a "s eri o u s" of fen se be cau se h e face d no po ss ib le jail ti m e, he was ex po se d to a st at ut or y

m ax im um po ss ib le fin e of $3 ,00 0 to ta l fo r th ree al le ge d vi ol at io ns , an d he al le ge d no
ot he r pe na lt ie s or co ns eq ue nc e as so ci at ed wit h th e ci ta ti on s. Bec au se th e vi ol at io ns

Bec au se th e be nc h tri al res ul te d in a f i n d i n g of two vi ol at io ns wit h th e 3 im po si ti on of no pe na lt y, i t i s by n o m ean s cl ear th at he face d an y po ss ib le pe na lt y at th e ti m e he pa id th e fil in g fee to ch al le ng e t h e r e s u l t o f th e be nc h tri al th ro ug h a ju r y tri al

. W e as su m e fo r th e sa ke of ou r an al y si s th at th e rel ev an t Bl a n t o n

as se ss m en t fo r se rio us ne ss m us t be un de rta ke n so le ly wit h refe ren ce to th e m ax im um pe na lt y as an ab st ract st at ut or y co nc ep t an d wit ho ut reg ard to th e in te rv en in g fact th at be nc h t ria l h ad res ul te d i n t he im po si ti on of n o p en al ty.

-4

-were no t "s eri ou s" of fen se s, he was no t en ti tl ed to a jury tri al an d th ere was no Si xt h
Am en dm en t v io la ti on . His a nc il la ry du e p ro ces s cl ai m s al so fai l.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-