Opinion ID: 6111137
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Appeal

Text: We first must determine whether this matter is an appropriate State appeal. When the State seeks to appeal a final order in a felony prosecution, this court may not consider the appeal unless the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires review by the court. Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3(d). Where the trial court acts within its discretion after  making an evidentiary decision based on the facts on hand or even a mixed question of law and fact, a State appeal is improper. State v. Edwards , 310 Ark. 516 , 518, 838 S.W.2d 356 , 357 (1992). Where the State questions the trial court's application of our rule to the facts at hand and not its interpretation ... the appeal must be dismissed. Id. Moreover, [w]e have several times considered-and rejected-appeals by the State of Arkansas in which it urged us to review cases dismissed pursuant to our speedy-trial rules. State v. Owens , 2017 Ark. 362 , at 4, 533 S.W.3d 582 , 584 (citing State v. Johnson , 374 Ark. 100 , 286 S.W.3d 129 (dismissing appeal where the issue involved the circuit court's reason for disallowing excludable time); Edwards , 310 Ark. 516 , 838 S.W.2d 356 (1992) (dismissing appeal because review depended upon an application of the rule to the facts and not on interpretation of the rule); State v. Tipton , 300 Ark. 211 , 779 S.W.2d 138 (1989) (dismissing appeal because challenge to trial court's decision to disallow excludable time did not involve the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law)). In each of these cases, the fact-intensive nature of speedy-trial jurisprudence militated against this court accepting an appeal by the State. Owens , 2017 Ark. 362 , at 4, 533 S.W.3d at 584 . The State argues that this case turns purely on an issue of law: the contemporaneous objection requirement for raising and preserving a speedy-trial issue, as set forth in Ferguson v. State , 343 Ark. 159 , 33 S.W.3d 115 (2000). However, the State's argument is unavailing. The complicated nature of this case's procedural facts, with the circuit court having to revisit its prior decisions on multiple occasions due to later discovered misrepresentations, illustrates that this case is far from any ordinary sort. Moreover, the State's suggested basis for this court's review would not serve the uniform administration of criminal law in any legitimate sense. It is already well-established that one will not be penalized for failing to contemporaneously raise an issue of which he or she had no knowledge at the time. See , e.g. , Anderson v. State , 353 Ark. 384 , 395, 108 S.W.3d 592 , 599 (2003) ([W]e have recognized four exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule ... [the second of which is] when defense counsel has no knowledge of the error and hence no opportunity to object[.]). As was pointed out by both the prosecution and the defense below, the State had not yet provided the Crime Lab file to Jones at the time Ferguson contemplates an objection to the 84-day-inclusion at issue here; this is a particular but significant factual detail that pushes this case even further outside the realm of any uniform administration of the criminal law. In short, Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 3(d) simply does not allow this court to consider an appeal of this nature. Appeal dismissed. Womack, J., concurs.