Court Opinion

ID: 9641065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:22:09.445267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.738655
License: Public Domain

Frank Holt, Justice. This case is a sequel to Reeves v. State, 258 Ark. 788, 528 S.W. 2d 924 (1975). There we reversed and remanded this petitioner’s conviction of possession of stolen property. Pending retrial the state charged that appellant, during the time he was released on bail, had committed two other felony offenses (theft by receiving and possession of stolen property). The municipal court found probable cause existed that petitioner had committed these two subsequent offenses. Then, in circuit court, upon the state’s motion and pursuant to Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 9.6 (1976), the court revoked petitioner’s bail on the previous charge. Rule 9.6 provides: If it is shown that any court has found reasonable cause to believe that a defendant has committed a felony while released pending adjudication of a prior charge, the court which initially released him may revoke his release. This appeal results from the circuit court’s order revoking petitioner’s bail and remanding him to custody without bail.1 It is first contended that the requisite element of probable cause as found by the municipal court, must fail because the petitioner was not afforded his right to counsel at his preliminary hearing. We cannot agree. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975), it is said: Because of its limited function and its nonadversary character, the probable cause determination is not a ‘critical stage’ in the prosecution that would require appointed counsel. Here, in our view, the hearing conducted by the examining court to determine reasonable cause in the two new cases was not a hearing of an adversary nature which required representation by counsel before the state could invoke and the circuit court apply the provision of Rule 9.6. Petitioner next contends that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to revoke petitioner’s bail because an appeal was pending in this court based upon the trial court overruling petitioner’s motion to dismiss Reeves v. State, supra, for lack of a speedy trial. It is true that a motion to dismiss from a denial of a speedy trial is an appealable order. Breedlove v. State, 225 Ark. 170, 280 S.W. 2d 224 (1955); and Warev. State, 159 Ark. 540, 252 S.W. 934 (1923). Therefore, petitioner argues that when his appeal was docketed here, the trial court then lost jurisdiction. State v. Adkisson, 251 Ark. 119, 471 S.W. 2d 332 (1971); and Andrews v. Lauener, 229 Ark. 894, 318 S.W. 2d 805 (1958). However, we do not construe these citations to be controlling here. Petitioner’s pending cause in this court is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. We hold that the pendency of this appeal did not divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to determine if there should be a revocation of petitioner’s pretrial release previously ordered by that court. See Estes v. Masner, 244 Ark. 797, 427 S.W. 2d 161 (1968). It is next asserted that Rule 9.6 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to appellant. The state responds that since there was a showing of probable cause that defendant had committed two felonies (receiving and possession of stolen property) while on bail on another similar offense that his continuing criminal conduct constituted such a compelling state interest it would justify refusal of any future release of the petitioner on any bail. In response, petitioner correctly contends that he has an absolute right before conviction, except in capital cases, to a reasonable bail. Amendments 8 and 14, U.S. Constitution and Art. 2, §§ 8 and 9, Arkansas Constitution (1874). Kendrick v. State, 180 Ark. 1160, 24 S.W. 2d 859 (1930); Thomas v. State, 260 Ark. 512, 542 S.W. 2d 284 (1976); and Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951). Here, we are of the view the trial court misconstrued our Rule 9, which is entitled “The Release Decision.” The rule provides for release with or without bail and, also, the imposition of reasonable terms and conditions. Rule 9.6 provides that “the court which initially released him may revoke his release.” Significantly, the rule does not in non-capital cases, as here, preclude the setting of a new and reasonable bail with whatever terms and restrictions deemed appropriate within its provisions. We hold our Rule is constitutional; however, it was unconstitutionally applied to petitioner. The order is affirmed as to the revocation of release and quashed with respect to a denial of a reasonable bail. Byrd and Hickman, JJ., dissent.   Upon a writ of certiorari, we ordered petitioner’s release upon a $15,-000 security.