Court Opinion

ID: 9772854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:31:32.931321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:48.862368
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. Based on neither rule nor case law, and without notice to the trial bench, the majority holds that if the period between the date of an arrest and the date of trial in municipal court exceeds the time for speedy trial provided by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28 (now one year in this instance), then the charges must be dismissed. It makes no difference whether the defendant moved to dismiss the charges in municipal court, nor does it matter whether the defendant may have been the cause of the delay, the mere time element, per se, is sufficient. I respectfully disagree and will attempt to demonstrate several reasons why this case should be affirmed. These are the significant dates: June 28, 1984 — Appellant arrested for DWI. January 23, 1986 — Appellant tried in municipal court. January 23, 1986 — Appeal to circuit court. April 13, 1986 — Counsel notified of jury trial setting for week of June 16. June 22, 1987 — Jury trial in circuit court. At 3:45 on Friday afternoon before the jury trial on Monday, appellant filed a motion to dismiss, which makes no mention of speedy trial. On Monday morning appellant moved for a dismissal on two grounds: 1) the appellant was not tried in municipal court within one year of the date of her arrest and 2) she was not tried in circuit court within one year of her appeal. The second argument has not been pursued on appeal before this court and need not be discussed, except to note that appellant was tried in circuit court within the applicable time as then prescribed by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28, that is, eighteen months. First, neither motion was timely. As the state pointed out to the circuit judge, it had no notice that speedy trial was to be asserted by the appellant and, hence, the state had no opportunity to determine and prove whether there were excludable periods under A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28.3. In exactly the same circumstance, in Summers v. State, 292 Ark. 237, 729 S.W.2d 147 (1987), we refused to .dismiss a petition to revoke a probation which was not heard within sixty days, as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1209(2) (Repl. 1977). Our refusal was based on the failure of the defendant to make a timely objection to the delay, hence the state was not placed on notice before the hearing that such objection would be raised. “The state was prejudiced by this lack of notice because it did not have the opportunity to present any evidence regarding whether there was a delay in returning Summers to Arkansas and whether he was unavailable during that time period.” Id., at 239. The identical situation exists here. Second, we have no transcript or other evidence of the proceedings in municipal court and therefore it is impossible to determine whether appellant waived the right to a speedy trial by not raising the issue in that court, as required by A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28.1(f); Duncan v. State, 294 Ark. 105, 740 S.W.2d 923 (1987); Richardson v. State, 292 Ark. 140, 728 S.W.2d 189 (1987). Nor can we determine whether there were excludable periods under Rule 28.3 chargeable to the appellant. On this ground alone the case should be affirmed. The majority accepts without question the assertion of the appellant that the defendant “motioned and requested the trial court to dismiss for failure to prosecute which is jurisdictional,” as evidence that the issue of speedy trial was raised in municipal court. But we are not bound by the mere allegations of a pleading. Munnerlyn v. State, 292 Ark. 467, 730 S.W.2d 895 (1987); Greeny. State, 223 Ark. 761, 270 S.W.2d 895 (1954); Buschow Lumber Co. v. Ellis, 194 Ark. 104, 105 S.W.2d 531 (1937); Booth v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 170 Ark. 801, 281 S.W. 8 (1926). It is the appellant’s burden to produce a record that demonstrates error and a proper objection thereto. S.D. Leasing Inc. v. RNF Corp., 278 Ark. 530, 647 S.W.2d 447 (1983). Appellant has provided neither. Third, A.R.Cr.P. Rule 28, by its own language, applies to charges pending in circuit court and appellant has cited nothing to support the contention that the rule applies to municipal court. If the majority concludes that the rule should be broadened to apply to municipal court trials, it ought, at least, to revise the rule in a manner that adopts appropriate procedures and gives reasonable notice to the bench and bar, as well as to the public. Fourth, even if Rule 28 were now applicable to municipal courts, the rule does not require a trial within one year, as appellant argued below, except as to charges filed after October 1, 1987. It is undisputed that the charge against appellant was filed no later than June 28, 1984. The majority cites cases holding that it is the state’s burden to show the speedy trial requirement was not breached by the prosecution. But those cases have no relevance to the facts of this case where the state had no notice prior to the commencement of trial that speedy trial in municipal court was to be an issue on appeal in circuit court. I submit the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. Hickman, J., and Glaze, J., join this dissent.