Case Name: Ken SWINDLE v. BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2005-06-30
Citations: 363 Ark. 118
Docket Number: 05-136
Parties: Ken SWINDLE v. BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judges: Hannah, C.J., concurs.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 363
Pages: 118–125

Head Matter:
Ken SWINDLE v. BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
05-136
211 S.W.3d 522
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered June 30, 2005
Appellant, pro se.
Mike Beebe, Att’y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
Robert L. Brown, Justice.
The appellant, Ken Swindle, appeals from the circuit court's order directing him to pay $150 for interpreting services that were provided to his Spanish-speaking client, Manuel Dejesus Manda, who was the defendant..Mr. Swindle's sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in holding him personally responsible for payment of the fee. We affirm the order of the circuit court.
On May 25, 2004, at what appears to have been a plea hearing on Mancia's charge of theft by receiving, the circuit court informed Mancia's counsel that he should personally reimburse the public defender's office for the use of its interpreter in the amount of $150. The circuit court observed that Mr. Swindle was privately retained and noted that he was the party responsible for ensuring that the fee was paid. Mr. Swindle inquired of the court as to who should receive payment, and the circuit court responded that the fee should be paid to the circuit clerk. On September 7, 2004, the circuit court entered its order that Mr. Swindle was personally responsible for paying $150 to the Benton County Circuit Clerk for the interpreting services provided to his client.
Mr. Swindle now argues on appeal that it was improper for the circuit court to assess him personally with the costs of his client's interpreter either under existing statutory law, the rules and regulations of this court, or the Arkansas Constitution. Mr. Swindle asserts that there is nothing in Act 555 of 1973, nor its resulting statute, Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-89-104 (Supp. 2003), that contemplates that an attorney representing a criminal defendant will ever be assessed a fee on behalf of his or her client. He contends that because § 16-89-104(b)(2) specifically provides that an acquitted criminal defendant shall not be required to pay an interpreter's fee, the converse should also be true and that if a defendant is not acquitted, the defendant is required to pay any fee for a court-appointed interpreter. He further states that the statute fails to include any authority for the proposition that the fee can be assessed against the defendant's attorney. He claims that the circuit court never examined Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-10-127(e) (Supp. 2003), which provides a procedure by which the interpreter could be paid through the Administrative Office of the Courts. Finally, he maintains that whether counsel was privately retained is irrelevant to the question of whether the attorney may be held personally responsible for the fee.
While not raised by the State, we first consider the question of whether Mr. Swindle has standing to challenge the circuit court's order assessing fees against him as part of Mancia's criminal case. We hold that Mr. Swindle can appeal that order.
Blackletter law provides that an appeal is only available to those people who were parties to the case in the trial court. See 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 264 (2004). Notwithstanding that general rule, it has been "widely recognized that in a proper case a nonparty may be sufficiently interested in a judgment to permit him or her to take an appeal from it." 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 265 (2004). For example, a nonparty might have the right to appeal where he or she has a "direct, immediate, and substantial interest" which has been prejudiced by the judgment, where he or she has been "aggrieved" by the decision, or where he or she has a right "sufficiently affected" by the judgment. Id. In addition, it has been observed that while attorneys have standing to appeal orders imposing sanctions upon them, they may appeal "only those fee awards, costs, or sanctions for which he or she is directly liable." 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 266 (2004).
A review of Arkansas' jurisprudence reveals that this court has adhered to the general rule on standing that an appellate court cannot act upon an appeal taken by one not a party to the action before the trial court. See In Re: $3,166,199, 337 Ark. 74, 987 S.W.2d 663 (1999). Nonetheless, this court has carved out two exceptions under which a nonparty can gain standing to pursue appellate review of a circuit court's order. See id. First, this court has held that appellate review may be had where a nonparty seeks relief under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(k), which provides that an independent action may be filed to relieve a person from judgment who was not actually served with process. See id. The second exception arises where any appellant, though not a party, has a pecuniary interest affected by the court's disposition of the matter below. See id. See also In Re: Allen, 304 Ark. 222, 800 S.W.2d 715 (1990).
In the case at hand, Mr. Swindle clearly has a pecuniary interest in the circuit court's order assessing the costs for Mancia's interpreter against him personally. For that reason, we conclude he has standing as a nonparty and is entitled to appellate review. See In Re: $3,166,199, supra; 5 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 266, supra; Beit v. Probate & Family Court Dep't, 385 Mass. 854, 434 N.E.2d 642 (1982) (observing that an attorney who had costs assessed against him, although not a party, was a person aggrieved, or one who had a pecuniary interest affected by the outcome).
We turn then to an issue raised by the State, which concerns the failure of Mr. Swindle to preserve the interpreter fee issue for our review. The State appears to be correct with respect to lack of preservation. When the circuit court assessed the costs of the interpreter against Mr. Swindle, the following colloquy occurred:
The Court: Oh, that reminds me. Mr. Swindle, you need to reimburse the public defender's office $150 for the use of their interpreter.
Mr. Swindle: I personally?
The Court: Well, you're the attorney.
Mr. Swindle: Your Honor, I filed a motion for appointment of an interpreter.
The Court: Well, that's fine. But this is a privately retained counsel, and you're — we'll provide the interpreter but that doesn't mean you're not responsible for reimbursement.
Mr. Swindle: My client; is that correct?
The Court: Well, you're the one that — you're the one that's responsible to get it paid. I'll just say I'm going to hold you responsible.
Mr. Swindle: Okay. Who do I pay that to?
The Court: Pay it to the circuit clerk.
Mr. Swindle: Thank you, Your Honor.
This court has held that in order to preserve an argument for appeal, there must be an objection to the circuit court that is sufficient to apprise the court of the particular error alleged. See, e.g., Dorn v. State, 360 Ark. 1, 199 S.W.3d 647 (2004); Davidson v. State, 358 Ark. 452, 193 S.W.3d 254 (2004). It is true that this court has distinguished bench trials from jury trials and held that at times a contemporaneous objection is not required for appellate review. See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 332 Ark. 138, 964 S.W.2d 793 (1998) (noting that when contested evidence is mentioned in a bench trial, an objection is not necessary as there is no risk of prejudice because a trial judge is able to consider evidence only for its proper purpose).
Under the facts before us, however, we hold that an objection by Mr. Swindle was necessary. In State v. Brummett, 318 Ark. 220, 885 S.W.2d 8 (1994), which concerned a State appeal from a sentencing hearing, this court held that the trial court was adequately apprised of the State's position when it objected to the sentence. We observed in that regard that the reason for our contemporaneous-objection rule is so that a trial court is given an opportunity to know the reason for counsel's disagreement with the court's proposed action prior to making its decision. See State v. Brummett, supra. This court has required a contemporaneous objection at a bench trial to challenge the existence of prior convictions to establish habitual-offender status for the purpose of sentencing the defendant. See Mackey v. State, 329 Ark. 229, 947 S.W.2d 359 (1997). We have further held that an objection at first opportunity, rather than a contemporaneous objection, was sufficient to preserve a challenge to an in-court identification during a bench trial. See Mezquita v. State, 354 Ark. 433, 125 S.W.3d 161 (2003).
In the instant case, there was no contemporaneous objection; nor was there any objection at first opportunity. Indeed, Mr. Swindle failed to object at all. Because the circuit court was never apprised of Mr. Swindle's objection to the assessment of the interpreter fee against him, we can only conclude that the circuit court was never aware that there was any possibility of error in his ruling. Accordingly, because Mr. Swindle failed to object to the circuit court's assessment of fees against him, the issue is not preserved for our review.
Affirmed.
Hannah, C.J., concurs.