Opinion ID: 1782151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Counsel

Text: The trial court accepted as evidence of one of the three prior convictions a certified transcript of the Farmington, Arkansas, municipal court docket showing that Peters was convicted of DWI, third offense, on September 15, 1982. The docket transcript was silent as to whether Peters had been represented or had waived representation by counsel. If the record is silent as to representation or waiver the conviction cannot be used as evidence that the offense charged in this case is the fourth DWI offense and thus a felony under the statute. Baldasaar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1505, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980); Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984). The only evidence presented by the state to show that Peters was represented by counsel at his third offense trial was a copy of a letter from a law student to the judge who presided at that trial. The letter shows Peters to have been represented by the student. The clerk of the Farmington City Court has entered a certification on the copy saying it is true and correct, but she does not say that the original is a record of the court. In a letter to the deputy prosecutor who tried the case before us now, the Farmington City Court clerk stated that the law student who signed the letter to the judge represented Peters under the supervision of a named, licensed attorney pursuant to our student practice rule. This letter bears no certification as being a public record. In response to the appellant's contention that these letters are hearsay, the state cites Williford v. State, 284 Ark. 449, 683 S.W.2d 228 (1985), as authority that a certified copy of a document showing representation by counsel is sufficient proof. In that case we held that a photocopy of a docket sheet certified by a court clerk as being an accurate record of the proceedings and showing waiver of the right to counsel was sufficient. In this case the only evidence that Peters was represented by an attorney was the letter from the clerk to the deputy prosecutor. This letter was not certified by the court clerk and it is not even part of the court record. We hold this letter is insufficient evidence that Peters was assisted by counsel at the trial of his third DWI conviction. Since there is not sufficient evidence of representation, Peters' third conviction cannot be used as evidence that the conviction before us now is his fourth.