Opinion ID: 2430206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: supplemental opinion denying appellants' petition for rehearing

Text: In their petition for rehearing, appellants better explain their legal theory for claiming refunds as illegal exactions. Simply put, they argue criminal offenses are now defined as felonies, misdemeanors and violations. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-105 (1987). While certain traffic offenses remain misdemeanors, see Ark.Code Ann. §§ 27-50-302 and 303 (1987), other particular traffic offenses, e.g., failure to yield, running a stop sign, are merely designated violations as provided under Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-108 (1987). Appellants contend court costs statutorily authorized only in misdemeanor cases have been illegally imposed by appellee against appellants when they committed violation-traffic offenses rather than misdemeanor-traffic offenses. Appellants now argue this court's reference in footnote 1 of its opinion to Ark. Code Ann. § 27-49-104 (1987) is wrong because that statute was superseded by §§ 27-50-302 and 303. Section 27-49-104 has not been specifically repealed, but whether or not it has been affected by any of the other above-cited provisions is not the controlling issue in this appeal. We do, however, point out that, in their original briefs, appellants never argued or discussed the foregoing statutory provisions, much less the effect, if any, the passage of each provision has on the others. But more important, they failed to set out facts that specifically reflect the traffic offense they committed or the sentences that were imposed. The importance in setting out such factual allegations bears not only on whether appellants' complaint stated a cause of action, but also on whether appellants have standing to assert such a cause. None of the paragraphs in appellants' complaint adequately set out facts showing either standing or entitlement to relief. Appellee correctly rejoins appellants' petition by stating the arguments now made by appellants can best be addressed in a new complaint if they chose to file one. Accordingly, we deny appellants' request for a rehearing. HOLT, C.J., not participating.