Court Opinion

ID: 9397383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 15:04:25.107212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.853180
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 91
                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                       No.   CR-22-484

                                                 Opinion Delivered:   May 25, 2023
 SHANNY GRADY
                               APPELLANT
                                                 APPEAL FROM THE GREENE
                                                 COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
 V.                                              28CR-20-548]

                                                 HONORABLE PAMELA
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                                 HONEYCUTT, JUDGE
                                  APPELLEE

                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

       Appellant Shanny Grady was convicted by a Greene County jury of five counts of

rape and sentenced to five concurrent terms of life imprisonment. For his sole point on

appeal, Grady argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for

continuance. We affirm.

       Because Grady does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, only a brief

recitation of the facts is necessary. See, e.g., Springs v. State, 368 Ark. 256, 244 S.W.3d 683

(2006). In 2020, Grady was charged with the rape of his stepson, a minor child (“MC”). At

trial, MC testified Grady raped him for the first time in 2018. Grady subsequently raped

MC on numerous occasions. Grady was convicted on all five counts of rape and sentenced

to life imprisonment. He now appeals.

       Grady argues on appeal that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying a

continuance to investigate a supplemental DNA report purportedly provided to the defense
the Friday before trial. He contends that the court’s denial of a continuance prevented him

from obtaining his own DNA expert to challenge the report.

      On the day of trial, Grady made reference to the State’s supplemental DNA report.

The following colloquy occurred:

      THE COURT:                   All right. Sir, is there anything else you wanted to state?

      GRADY:                       As far as evidence being presented to me, is there a
                                   timely manner in that?

      THE COURT:                   I’m not sure I understand your question.

      GRADY:                       I was presented some evidence in the last five days that I
                                   have not really had time to have my attorney to
                                   investigate.

      THE COURT:                   What is that evidence?

      GRADY:                       DNA evidence and the evidence of a flat sheet and a
                                   fitted sheet. Rhonda Thomas stated that came off my
                                   stepson’s bed. But there is no DNA of my stepson––

      DEFENSE COUNSEL:             Mr. Grady, I’m sorry to interrupt you. You feel free to
                                   speak with Judge Honeycutt and tell her everything you
                                   want to. But I want to caution you at this point, there’s
                                   three prosecutors in this room who are about to take this
                                   case to trial. And as the old saying goes, especially from
                                   the judges at the very beginning of the proceeding,
                                   anything you say can or may or might be or will be used
                                   against you. And if you start going down a road of
                                   ringing a bell right now in the presence of three
                                   prosecutors, that may not be a good idea. So I would
                                   advise you to proceed at your own caution.

      DEFENSE COUNSEL:             Your Honor, we did discuss this yesterday and explained
                                   to him once again that that’s what cross-examination is
                                   for.

      THE COURT:                   Okay. Did you want to say anything else?

      GRADY:                       I think my attorney just advised me to stay quiet.

                                             2
       DEFENSE COUNSEL:             I said that is your option.

       THE COURT:                   All right. If there are no other motions on the floor, then
                                    I guess we’ll adjourn this hearing back here and proceed
                                    out to select a jury.

       As the record demonstrates, Grady never requested a continuance to obtain an expert

to perform DNA testing. An appellant is bound by the scope and nature of the arguments

made at trial and may not change or enlarge those grounds on appeal. Collins v. State, 2019

Ark. 110, at 6, 571 S.W.3d 469, 472. Because Grady’s argument is raised for the first time

on appeal, it is not preserved for our review. Lewondowski v. State, 2022 Ark. 46, at 18, 639

S.W.3d 850, 858.

                                        Rule 4-3(a) Review

       Because Grady was sentenced to life imprisonment, this court, in compliance with

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), has examined the record for all objections, motions,

and requests made by either party that the circuit court decided adversely to Grady. We find

no prejudicial error.

       Affirmed.

       Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Megan Wilson, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               3