Opinion ID: 1662152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: constitutional challenge to act 535 of 1993

Text: Appellant filed a pretrial motion challenging as unconstitutional on both state and federal grounds Act 535 of 1993, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-97-101 to -104 (Supp.1995), which provides for bifurcated proceedings of the determinations of guilt and punishment in felony cases. The trial court denied this motion in an omnibus hearing. Appellant's motion included nine arguments, all of which are argued on appeal and none of which has merit. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion. We do not reach the merits of many of these arguments because they are all essentially one-sentence assertions with no citation to supporting authority and without explanation as to how the cited portions of the constitutions have been violated. We do not consider an argument, even a constitutional one, when the appellant presents no citation to authority or convincing argument in its support, and it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well-taken. Roberts v. State, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192 (1996). This rule is consistent with the well-established principle that statutes are presumed to be constitutional and the burden of proving otherwise rests with the party challenging the statute. Id. When an appellant does not explain how a particular statute offends his constitutional rights, we do not consider his deficient contentions. Id.
Appellant contends that the Act violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article 2, Section 9 of the Arkansas Constitution because it does not provide for appellate review of the sentence ultimately imposed. Appellant argues that the absence of appellate review of a sentence contravenes the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant's argument is entirely without merit as it is based upon a false premise. The Act does not prohibit or interfere with our practice of reviewing sentencing proceedings when sentencing issues are properly presented. Indeed, as the state points out, we have recently reversed a case for evidential errors that occurred in the sentencing phase. Rush v. State, 324 Ark. 147, 919 S.W.2d 933 (1996). As for review of the ultimately imposed sentence, we do not usually review the length of a sentence that is within legal limits except in limited circumstances not relevant here. Henderson v. State, 322 Ark. 402, 910 S.W.2d 656 (1995). Finally, we note that appellant makes no contention whatsoever that his sentence is erroneous or that error occurred in the sentencing phase of his trial.
When enacted in 1993, Act 565 contained a sunset provision, whereby the Act would expire on June 30, 1997. Appellant argues that the sunset provision violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. This argument is rendered moot because the sunset provision was repealed by Act 892 of 1995. This court does not address moot arguments. Johnson, 319 Ark. 3, 888 S.W.2d 661.
Citing the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Sections 3 and 18 of the Arkansas Constitution, and without any explanation, appellant argues that the bifurcation process is void for vagueness, fails to give adequate notice of the proscribed conduct, and denies due process and equal protection of the laws. Appellant argues further that criminal laws are to be strictly construed. This argument is likewise wholly without merit. First, the Act does not proscribe any conduct at all; rather, it provides for remedial criminal procedures. Generally, we construe procedural laws liberally to achieve their remedial objectives. Second, appellant fails to articulate any particular argument about how the Act is vague or violates his due-process and equal-protection rights. We do not address such deficient contentions, even though they are constitutional ones. Roberts, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192.
Appellant contends the Act violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions because it applies to criminal acts that occurred before its effective date. We have previously considered this argument in the federal context and concluded it was entirely without merit. Williams v. State, 318 Ark. 846, 887 S.W.2d 530 (1994). Because our state constitution's ex post facto clause is essentially identical to the federal clause, for the same reasoning expressed in Williams, 318 Ark. 846, 887 S.W.2d 530, we hold the Act does not violate the state ex post facto clause.
Appellant argues his state and federal due-process and equal-protection rights were violated because the Act's bifurcation process was made applicable before the Arkansas Model Jury Instructions for Criminal Cases was amended. Appellant does not cite any authority for this contention, nor does he make a convincing argument supporting it. Accordingly, we do not address this deficient contention. Roberts, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192.
Appellant argues that the Act gives the prosecutor the ultimate decision as to whether a defendant can plead guilty and therefore violates the state and federal due-process and equal-protection clauses. This argument is based upon a false premise. It is the trial court that decides whether it will accept the defendant's guilty plea in accordance with A.R.Cr.P.Rules 24.4 to 24.6. Moreover, a defendant does not have an absolute right to plead guilty. Numan v. State, 291 Ark. 22, 722 S.W.2d 276 (1987).
Appellant argues that the Act is unconstitutional because it allows the admission of generic victim-impact evidence in violation of Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991). We have recently discussed Payne and upheld our victim-impact statute applicable in capital cases, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-602(4) (Repl.1993). Kemp v. State, 324 Ark. 178, 919 S.W.2d 943 (1996). However, appellant cites no authority, nor makes any argument that Payne applies to non-capital sentencing procedures. Accordingly, we do not address this argument. Roberts, 324 Ark. 68, 919 S.W.2d 192.
Appellant argues that the Act does not allow for voir dire of potential jurors concerning whether they can consider the full range of penalties upon conviction. Appellant contends this violates his state and federal right to a fair and impartial jury. Appellant's argument is, however, based on an entirely false premise. The Act does not purport to restrict voir dire examination of prospective jurors.