Court Opinion

ID: 7820860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:54:20.361804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:44.132327
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I concur solely because it seems clear to me that the first day of the next term of the Circuit Court of Greene County, after the entry of the Municipal Court judgment, was May 21. The affidavit and bond in this case clearly indicated an appearance at the next term of that court. There is nothing in the record to indicate that any other time had been fixed by the trial court in any manner that required all litigants to take notice. Otherwise, I agree with the trial judge that all litigants, particularly those who invoked the jurisdiction of the court, are charged with notice of the convening of its terms and of times fixed in advance for the holding of said court without any notice being served on them, and that there are no due process requirements of notice of such dates. The very reason for the constitutional provision that the circuit court be held at the times prescribed by law (Art. 7, § 12, Constitution of Arkansas) and the legislation putting the provision into execution [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-310 (Repl. 1962 and Supp. 1979)] is to establish a fixed time of which all persons are required to take notice. The basic rule in this regard is stated at p. 230, 21 CJS, Courts, § 148, thus: Where the time and place of holding a term or session of court have been properly fixed and appointed, it is the duty of parties having business at such term or session to take notice thereof, or to suffer the penalty, whatever that may happen to be, of their ignorance.*** This rule has special application to one who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court. In Berry v. Sims, 195 Ark. 326, 112 S.W. 2d 25, we said: The appellant wholly misconceives the functions of the court, his own duties and obligations in regard to it in the preparation of his case when he has once invoked its jurisdiction. When he shall have set in motion the machinery of the courts, he must take notice of the convenings and adjournments thereof and no obligation in law rests upon the defendant or anyone else to apprise the plaintiff of the fact that courts will convene according to law at regular terms or at special or adjourned sessions. It is true, courts may not serve the purpose of entrapping the unwary at special or adjourned sessions. The court may cause notice to be given where it is deemed necessary to serve the purposes of justice, but plaintiffs, when once they invoke the jurisdiction of the court, must take notice of the regular or adjourned sessions thereof. Act 202 of 1943, digested as Ark. Stat. Ann. § 22-311 (Repl. 1962) was never intended to have the effect of relieving parties to proceedings of the requirement that they take notice of the convening of a term of court or of a day of that term to which the session is recessed or adjourned. That act was merely an application of the provisions of Initiated Act No. 3, adopted by the people on November 6, 1936, which made the courts open at all times for criminal proceedings. See § 31, Act 3 of 1936; Leflar, The Criminal Procedure Reforms of 1936 — Twenty Years After, 11 Ark. L. Rev. 117, 135. This statute only requires notice when the interested parties are not otherwise required by law to take notice and when the time for a session has not been previously fixed by the court by proper order. I am not in complete agreement with the majority’s statement about the appearance of one such as appellant by his attorney, where, as in this case, imprisonment could be a part of the punishment. It is purely a matter of discretion with the court whether the defendant on a misdemeanor charge shall be permitted to answer the charge by his attorney, without personally appearing in court himself, and the exercise of that discretion cannot be reviewed by this court on appeal, except for abuse. Warren v. State, 19 Ark. 214; Bridges v. State, 38 Ark. 510; Owen v. State, 38 Ark. 512. See also, Sweeden v. State, 19 Ark. 205; Henderson v. Town of Murfreesboro, 119 Ark. 603, 178 S.W. 912; Martin v. State, 40 Ark. 364.