Opinion ID: 1471392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the period from september 3, 1991 to january 14, 1992

Text: At a hearing on September 3, 1991, Attorney Hartenstein asked that a previous oral order by Judge Lofton allowing the payment of Tommy Crosthwait, a private investigator, be honored. The court stated that Mr. Crosthwait would not be paid at that point. Mr. Hartenstein then moved for a continuance stating that it would be impossible for him to be ready for trial without the research of the investigator. The continuance was granted and the trial was set for January 14, 1992. Judge Lofton then recused from the case on September 4, 1991, and the Honorable Randall Williams was appointed on September 9, 1991. A nunc pro tunc order reflecting the continuance was later prepared by the prosecution, signed by Judge Lofton and filed on October 8, 1991. In a letter to all counsel dated November 20, 1991, Judge Williams acknowledged the continuance/setting order signed by Judge Lofton. Appellant argues that the order is invalid because his counsel was not present nor apprised of the ex parte order until after November 20, 1991, the date on which he received Judge Williams' letter. Clements claims that his Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel was violated and that he was unable to make a contemporaneous objection to the order being entered. Appellant concedes he was aware of the order at least as of November 20, 1991. However, he did not voice any disagreement until February 10, 1992, the day before trial. We have stated that if a defendant discovers a docket error which affects his speedy trial rights or takes exception to the wording of an order, it is incumbent on him to bring the matter to the attention of the trial court within a reasonable time. See Lewis v. State, supra ; Anderson v. Hargarves, Judge, 272 Ark. 259, 613 S.W.2d 587 (1981). If appellant believed that Judge Lofton's order charging the continuance to him was in error, he should have immediately brought this to the court's attention. Clements also contends that the backdated nunc pro tunc order is invalid as a matter of law. A nunc pro tunc order may be entered to make the court's record speak the truth or to show that which actually occurred. Murry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 291 Ark. 445, 725 S.W.2d 571 (1987). However, a court may not change the record to do that which should have been done but was not. Bradley v. French, 300 Ark. 64, 776 S.W.2d 355 (1989). In addition, appellant claims that because Judge Lofton had recused from the case, he was without jurisdiction to sign any nunc pro tunc order. As in Lewis v. State, supra , we believe that the order entered after the continuance was granted was sufficient. In Lewis , we held that an order entered two months after a continuance was granted was sufficient. Here, the order was entered thirty-five days after the continuance was granted. Because Judge Lofton recused from the case the day after he granted the continuance, the administrative oversight of not filing the order immediately is understandable and the later correction of the record was permissible. As stated above, a review of the record might be enough to satisfy the requirements of Ark.R.Crim.P. 28.3(i). See Hubbard v. State, supra ; McConaughy v. State, supra , Key v. State, supra , and Kennedy v. State, supra . See also Hudson v. State, 303 Ark. 637, 799 S.W.2d 529. The record of the September 3, 1991 hearing indicates that it was appellant who requested the continuance which delayed the trial. The state was prepared to try Clements within the speedy trial period and objected to the continuance. The record also demonstrates that all of the parties understood that a continuance was being granted. Because the record itself demonstrates that this delay was attributable to Clements and was memorialized in the proceedings at the time, this period is excludable under the circumstances.