Court Opinion

ID: 9894295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 14:04:04.058932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:32.776681
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 497
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION II
                                       No. CR-22-707

 AARON SCOTT TAYLOR                             Opinion Delivered November 1, 2023

                               APPELLANT
                                                APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
                                                COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                             [NO. 63CR-19-1159]

                                                HONORABLE KEN CASADY, JUDGE
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                 APPELLEE AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO
                                          CORRECT SENTENCING ORDER

                             CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

       Appellant Aaron Taylor was convicted by a Saline County jury of four counts of

failure to appear and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a total of twenty-four years in

prison. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

We find no error and affirm; however, the sentencing order contains clerical errors that

require us to remand for correction.

                            I. Factual and Procedural Background

       Taylor was arrested on June 19, 2019, during a parole search in which he was found

to be in possession of methamphetamine and syringes. On June 21, Taylor signed a pretrial

release order directing him to appear in court on August 6. Taylor failed to appear on that

date, and an arrest warrant was issued on September 16. He signed another pretrial release

order acknowledging a court date of November 5. He again failed to appear on that date,
and another arrest warrant was issued on November 21. He signed yet another pretrial

release order giving him a court date of January 7, 2020. The State filed a criminal

information on December 30, 2019, charging Taylor with one count of possession of a

controlled substance and two counts of failure to appear.

       Taylor failed to appear again at his January 7, 2020 court date, and the State filed an

amended information on January 13 to add a third count of failure to appear. An arrest

warrant was issued on January 25; Taylor was ordered to appear in court on August 26, 2020,

but once again, he did not do so. The State subsequently filed yet another amended

information charging Taylor with four counts of failure to appear. 1 This amended

information also charged Taylor with being a habitual offender, having previously been

found guilty of four or more felonies.

       The charges against Taylor proceeded to a jury trial on April 8, 2022. After presenting

its witnesses regarding the drug charges, the State called Leah Redmon, the chief clerk of the

Saline County District Court, to introduce copies of the August 6, November 5, and January

7 pretrial release orders as well as the multiple arrest warrants. She testified without objection

that Taylor had signed each of the pretrial release orders. Redmon explained that before an

arrest warrant for a failure to appear is issued, court staff will look to see if the court had

been notified of a valid excuse. She noted that the court had not received a valid excuse for

any of the dates on which the arrest warrants for Taylor had been issued. Heather Hunter,

       1
        Each amended information continued to charge Taylor with one count of possession
of a controlled substance.

                                                2
deputy clerk in the Saline County Circuit Clerk’s Office, introduced the order to appear

associated with the August 26, 2020 court date; it too was signed by Taylor.

       After moving for a directed verdict, which was denied, Taylor testified on his own

behalf. After addressing the drug charges, Taylor testified about his failures to appear. Taylor

did not dispute he signed each of the pretrial release orders at issue; rather, his testimony

focused on the reasons he failed to appear. As to the missed August 6, 2019 court date,

Taylor said that he had been robbed and assaulted as he left the casino in Hot Springs. He

said he was hit in the back of the head and sustained a mild concussion, although he did not

go to the hospital. He did not recall the exact date, but he said it was “right around” August

6 and “definitely before” that date. Taylor said he missed the November 5, 2019 court date

because he was sick with what he assumed was COVID-19.2

       Taylor asserted that he missed the January 7, 2020 court appearance because he had

been at his father’s funeral, explaining that his father had died on December 23, and the

funeral had been a week later. He said that he was “consoling the family a little bit and, you

know, trying to hold things together a little bit there.” And finally, with respect to the August

26, 2020 failure to appear, Taylor asserted that he was under the impression that a plea deal

had been negotiated, there was no further court action taking place, and there was no need

for him to be present for anything.

       2
       Taylor’s attorney acknowledged that this date was “about two or three months before
we had the official COVID crisis.”

                                               3
       On cross-examination, the State challenged Taylor’s explanation for each of his

failures to appear. As to the August 6, 2019 date, Taylor acknowledged that he had not filed

a police report following the alleged assault that kept him from court on that date, suggesting

that he “had been assaulted and hit in the head, so maybe I wasn’t thinking very clearly.” He

conceded that he had not gone to the doctor in connection with the illness that caused him

to miss court on November 5, 2019. Regarding the January 7, 2020 failure to appear

following his father’s funeral, Taylor said that he was “a little bit distraught,” and his court

date was “not in the top of [his] mind.” With respect to the August 26, 2020 missed court

date, Taylor conceded that he had an extensive criminal history, and he knew he was

supposed to be in court to sign paperwork in conjunction with a guilty plea. He admitted

that he “didn’t read that piece of paper [telling him to be in court on August 26, 2020] very

thoroughly.” Finally, Taylor acknowledged that he had no one to corroborate the fact of his

illness in November, his presence at his father’s funeral, or where he was on August 26.

       Taylor renewed his directed-verdict motion, arguing that he had offered reasonable

excuses for his failures to appear. The motion was denied. The jury subsequently acquitted

Taylor of the drug charge but convicted him on all four counts of failure to appear. The jury

recommended a sentence of six years on each count, to be served consecutively. The

sentencing order reflecting Taylor’s convictions and sentences was entered on April 11,

2022, and Taylor timely appealed. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court should have

granted his motion for a directed verdict because he provided a reasonable excuse for each

of his failures to appear.

                                               4
                                     II. Standard of Review

       On appeal, we treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence. Gervais v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 161, at 1, 544 S.W.3d 590, 592. This court

views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting

the verdict will be considered. Id., 544 S.W.3d at 592. In reviewing a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by

substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. at 2, 544 S.W.3d at 592. Substantial

evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond

suspicion or conjecture. Id., 544 S.W.3d at 592. We do not, however, weigh the evidence

presented at trial, as that is a matter for the fact-finder, nor will we weigh the credibility of

the witnesses. Id., 544 S.W.3d at 592.

                                          III. Analysis

       A person commits the offense of failure to appear if he or she fails to appear without

reasonable excuse subsequent to having been lawfully set at liberty upon condition that he

or she appear at a specified time, place, and court. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-120(b)(2) (Repl.

2016). Failure to appear is a Class C felony if the required appearance was in regard to a

pending charge or disposition of a felony charge either before or after a determination of

guilt of the felony charge. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-54-120(c)(1).

       To be convicted of failure to appear under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-

120(b)(2), our supreme court has explained that the State must prove that the defendant (1)

failed to appear, (2) without a reasonable excuse, (3) after having been lawfully set at liberty,

                                               5
and (4) upon the condition that he appear at a specified time, place, and court. Stewart v.

State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). Documentary proof of a judge’s verbal or

written order to appear in court at a specific time and place is required. Id. Reasonable excuse

is a defense for failure to appear. Hyatt v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 390, at 6, 607 S.W.3d 180,

184.

       Taylor does not dispute that he was ordered to appear in court on August 6, 2019,

November 5, 2019, January 7, 2020, and August 26, 2020; nor does he dispute that he failed

to appear in court on those days. Instead, he argues only that he had reasonable excuses for

not appearing in court. He contends that the State presented no evidence to rebut his

testimony regarding his excuses; therefore, his testimony should be taken as uncontroverted.

In essence, he maintains that his explanations were objectively reasonable, and the State

failed to meet its burden of proof. We disagree.

       Taylor couches his argument in terms of the State’s failure to prove that his excuses

were not reasonable; however, it is the defendant’s obligation to establish to the satisfaction of

the jury that he or she had a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to appear. Hyatt, supra;

Payne v. State, 21 Ark. App. 243, 731 S.W.2d 235 (1987). Although Taylor argues that he

put forward proof of reasonable excuses for his failures to appear, his argument relies entirely

on the premise that the State did not do enough to discredit his testimony. This, however,

goes to the credibility of his testimony. This court does not attempt to weigh the evidence or

assess the credibility of witnesses; that duty lies solely with the trier of fact. Harmon v. State,

                                                6
340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (2000) (holding that we are bound by the fact-finder’s

determination of the credibility of witnesses).

       Moreover, despite Taylor’s contention that his testimony was “uncontroverted,” a jury

is not required to believe a defendant’s self-serving testimony. See Brooks v. State, 2016 Ark.

305, 498 S.W.3d 292; Hyatt, 2020 Ark. App. 390, at 6, 607 S.W.3d at 184 (“[W]e have long

held that the trier of fact is free to believe all or part of a witness’s testimony”); McClain v.

State, 2016 Ark. App. 205, 489 S.W.3d 179 (defendant provided no evidence to the fact-

finder beyond his own bare assertion that he was in the hospital when he was supposed to

be in court, and the fact-finder clearly did not believe defendant’s account).

       Here, the jury clearly did not find Taylor’s testimony credible or his excuses

reasonable. We will not reweigh the evidence or the jury’s assessment of his credibility. We

therefore affirm Taylor’s convictions for failure to appear.

       There are, however, clerical errors on the sentencing order. Although the latest

amended information charged Taylor as a habitual offender and the jury was instructed

accordingly, the sentencing order does not reflect that Taylor was sentenced as a habitual

offender pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-501 (Supp. 2023). The circuit

court is free to correct a clerical error to have the judgment speak the truth; therefore, we

remand to the circuit court with instructions to correct the sentencing order by marking the

boxes indicating that Taylor was sentenced as a habitual offender on all four offenses. See

Roberts v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 115, at 12, 662 S.W.3d 668, 676.

       Affirmed; remanded to correct sentencing order.

                                               7
ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Jones Law Firm, by: F. Parker Jones III, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                         8