Opinion ID: 1781144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Authority to Dismiss Charge Over State's Objection

Text: For this point, the State argues that the trial court lacked the authority to sua sponte dismiss count five against Vasquez-Aerreola. Amendment 21, section 1, of the state constitution reserves the duty of charging an accused to the prosecutor or grand jury. This court has held that a trial court violates the separation of powers when it amends an information over the State's objection. State v. Hill, 306 Ark. 375, 811 S.W.2d 323 (1991). In State v. Murphy, 315 Ark. 68, 864 S.W.2d 842 (1993), this court stated that [t]he choice of which charges to file against an accused is a matter entirely within the prosecutor's discretion (citations omitted), and a duty which the trial court should never perform (citations omitted). In State v. Knight, 318 Ark. 158, 884 S.W.2d 258 (1994), the defendant entered a guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The trial court then proceeded to conduct a sentencing hearing. After hearing the testimony, the trial court agreed to give the defendant a break and sentenced him to ten years supervised probation along with a mandatory one-year in-house treatment for drug addiction. The State objected, arguing that a sentencing judge did not have authority to waive the mandatory ten-year penalty for a Class Y felony. The trial court then reduced the charge to the lesser of mere possession and sentenced the defendant to ten years. The State appealed and this court reversed, holding that the trial court impermissibly amended the charge in violation of separation of powers. The defendant alternatively argued that the judge did not amend the charge, but rather found that there was an insufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. The Knight court rejected this argument, noting that there was a clear factual basis for the charge. The court further found that even had the judge in this case rejected the guilty plea for lack of a factual basis after he accepted it, he did not follow the correct procedure. Id. The court cited Ark.R.Crim.P. 25.3(b), and its requirement that the trial court call upon the defendant to affirm or withdraw the plea if there is no factual basis for a charge. Because the judge did not call upon the defendant to do this, he was not in compliance with the rule. Moreover, the court emphasized that: [Ark.R.Crim.P. 25.3(b)] does not authorize a circuit judge to reduce the charge to a lesser included offense; nor does it permit pleading to another charge that the judge believes to be appropriate. Id. Based upon the reasoning articulated in State v. Knight , we conclude that the trial court erroneously dismissed count five in the present case. If the trial court found that there was no factual basis for the plea as to the fifth charge, Ark.R.Crim.P. 25.3(b) mandates that the trial court call upon the defendant in open court to either affirm or withdraw the plea. This procedure was not followed. Moreover, by extension of the reasoning in State v. Knight, supra , if a trial court lacks the authority to amend or reduce a charge under Rule 25.3, then it logically follows that a judge lacks the authority to dismiss a charge under the rule. Thus, we find that the dismissal of the charge violated the separation of powers, and that count five should be reinstated on remand of the case. The trial court also suggested two alternative bases for its dismissal of count five: that the State had abandoned the charge by moving to amend the four delivery counts down to one, and that the dismissal was appropriate as a discovery sanction. With respect to the abandonment theory, the trial court denied the State's motion to amend the information. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed count five over the State's objection. We find no authority to suggest that the mere fact that the State made a motion to amend the information, which was denied, was somehow an abandonment of the charges in the information. We also summarily dispose of the discovery sanction theory. For the reasons stated above, the dismissal of the charge as a discovery sanction under Rule 19.7 violated the separation of powers. State v. Murphy, supra . Reversed and remanded. ARNOLD, C.J., and THORNTON, J., concur.