Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner Donna Crump was convicted in the Polk County Municipal Court of driving while intoxicated (DWI) on March 24, 2000. Crump lodged the transcript of the municipal proceedings with the Polk County Circuit Court on April 5, 2000; she had filed a notice of appeal on March 30, 2000, but the certificate of service showed service only on the municipal court and not on the prosecuting attorney. No trial date was set in circuit court. On August 9, 2001, Crump moved to dismiss for violation of the speedy-trial rules. After a hearing on August 15, 2001, the trial court denied the motion. Crump filed a petition for writ of prohibition in the Arkansas Supreme Court to prevent trial in circuit court; this Court had previously granted a stay and, in this opinion, grants the petition.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the filing of a notice of appeal is required to perfect an appeal from municipal court to circuit court under Arkansas Inferior Court Rule 9.
  2. When the speedy-trial time period begins to run for a municipal appeal to circuit court.
  3. Whether a writ of prohibition is warranted where the appellant's right to a speedy trial has allegedly been violated.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Crump argued the State violated Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1 and 28.2 by failing to try her within twelve months from the date of filing her appeal, and that the State could not show any excludable periods.

State's Arguments

  • The State argued Crump failed to show a writ was clearly warranted and that the record submitted was incomplete. It also contended that Crump's failure to provide notice of her appeal to the prosecutor tolled the running of the speedy-trial time.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Ford v. Wilson, 327 Ark. 243, 939 S.W.2d 258 (1997) Prohibition lies to the circuit court and not to the individual judge. The Court treated the petition as one against the circuit court rather than an individual judge.
Pike v. Benton Circuit Court, 340 Ark. 311, 10 S.W.3d 447 (2000) Supporting authority that prohibition is addressed to the court. Used as additional authority for treating the petition as directed to the circuit court.
McBride v. State, 297 Ark. 410, 762 S.W.2d 785 (1989) Interpreting Arkansas Inferior Court Rule 9: an appeal is taken by filing the municipal record within thirty days; a notice of appeal is not required to perfect the appeal. The Court held Crump properly filed her appeal on April 5, 2000, and that notice was not required to perfect the municipal appeal.
Glover v. State, 307 Ark. 1, 817 S.W.2d 409 (1991) The primary burden to bring a case to trial is on the court and prosecutor; a defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial and the time runs without demand by the defendant. The Court applied this principle to conclude speedy-trial time began on the date the appeal was filed and that the State bore the burden to bring the case to trial.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first noted the procedural record: conviction on March 24, 2000, and lodging of the municipal record in circuit court on April 5, 2000. It found Crump established a prima facie speedy-trial violation by showing over fifteen months elapsed between filing her appeal and the hearing on her motion to dismiss. The pivotal question was whether Crump's failure to serve the prosecutor with notice of the appeal tolled the speedy-trial clock.

The Court applied Arkansas Inferior Court Rule 9, as explained in McBride v. State, holding that an appeal is perfected by filing the municipal record within thirty days and that a separate notice of appeal is not required. The Court further applied Glover v. State to state that the primary burden to bring a case to trial rests with the court and prosecutor and that a defendant need not demand trial for the speedy-trial period to run. Accordingly, the Court concluded the speedy-trial period began on April 5, 2000 (the date the record was filed in circuit court). Because the State did not establish any excludable periods, the Court found a clear violation of Crump's right to a speedy trial.

Holding and Implications

Writ of prohibition granted.

Direct effect: The grant of the writ prevents the circuit court from proceeding to trial on Crump's DWI charge based on the speedy-trial violation. The opinion does not discuss broader precedent beyond its application to the parties' dispute; no new rule beyond the Court's application of existing authorities was announced.

Donna CRUMP, Petitioner v. The Honorable Gayle K. FORD, Judge, Respondent

1. Appeal error — appeal to circuit court — filing of notice of appeal not required to perfect municipal appeal. — The filing of an appeal to circuit court is governed by Arkansas Inferior Court Rule 9, under which an appeal to the circuit court is taken by filing a record of the municipal court proceedings within thirty days of the entry of judgment; the filing of a notice of appeal is not required to perfect a municipal appeal.

2. Appeal error — appeal to circuit court — speedy-trial time begins to run from day appeal is filed in circuit court. — The time for speedy trial begins to run from the day an appeal is filed in circuit court; the primary burden is on the court and the prosecutor to assure that a case is brought to trial in a timely fashion; a defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial, and the time for trial begins running without demand by the defendant.

3. Appeal error — petition for writ of prohibition — granted where appellant's right to speedy trial had been violated. — Where the time for speedy trial began to run on the day that appellant properly filed her appeal in circuit court, and where the State failed to establish that there were any excludable periods, it was clear that appellant's right to a speedy trial had been violated; the supreme court granted a writ of prohibition.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Donna Crump seeks a writ of prohibition directed to the Honorable Gayle K. Ford of the Polk County Circuit Court to prevent a trial on a charge of driving while intoxicated ("DWI") because of a speedy-trial violation. This court previously granted Crump's motion to stay the circuit court proceedings, and we now grant her petition for a writ of prohibition.

Prohibition lies to the circuit court and not to the individual judge. Ford v. Wilson, 327 Ark. 243, 939 S.W.2d 258 (1997). Accordingly, we will treat the petition as one against the circuit court. Pike v. Benton Circuit Court, 340 Ark. 311, 10 S.W.3d 447 (2000).

The record reflects that Crump was convicted in the Polk County Municipal Court of DWI on March 24, 2000. She subsequently lodged the transcript of the municipal court proceedings with the circuit court of Polk County on April 5, 2000. Crump also filed a notice of appeal on March 30, 2000, but the certificate of service reflected that it was only sent to the municipal court, and not to the prosecuting attorney. No trial date was ever set, and on August 9, 2001, Crump filed a motion to dismiss based upon the State's failure to conduct a speedy trial.

A hearing on the issue of speedy trial was held on August 15, 2001, wherein Crump contended that the State had violated Ark.R.Crim.P. 28.1 and 28.2, by failing to try her within twelve months from the date of the filing of her appeal. Crump also alleged that the State would be unable to show that any of the time that had lapsed was excludable, and thus, could no longer try her. The State argued that Crump's failure to provide it with notice of her appeal tolled the running of time for speedy trial. The trial court denied Crump's motion, finding that the intent of the lower court rule regarding appeals is not to allow a defendant to file an appeal without telling anyone and then request a dismissal under the speedy-trial rule.

Crump now seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent her prosecution in circuit court on the DWI charge. In response to Crump's petition, the State argues that Crump has failed to show that a writ is clearly warranted in this matter by failing to bring forth a record showing that the circuit court proceeding is wholly in excess of its jurisdiction. Specifically, the State asserts that the record submitted by Crump contains only the partial testimony of one of the two witnesses who testified at the hearing and does not include a record of the trial court's oral ruling on the motion to dismiss. Our review of the record before us, however, reveals that there is a transcript of testimony from two witnesses, as well as a transcript of the circuit judge's ruling from the bench.

Turning now to the merits of Crump's claim, we first note that she has established a prima facie case of a speedy-trial violation by showing that over fifteen months passed between the filing of her appeal and the hearing on her motion to dismiss. The issue now is whether Crump's failure to send the State notice of her appeal tolls the running of time under the speedy-trial rule.

[1-3] The filing of an appeal to circuit court is governed by Arkansas Inferior Court Rule 9. See McBride v. State, 297 Ark. 410, 762 S.W.2d 785 (1989). Under Rule 9, an appeal to the circuit court is taken by filing a record of the municipal court proceedings within thirty days of the entry of judgment. The filing of a notice of appeal is not required to perfect a municipal appeal. Id. The time for speedy trial begins to run from the day an appeal is filed in circuit court. Moreover, this court has held that the primary burden is on the court and the prosecutor to assure that a case is brought to trial in a timely fashion. Glover v. State, 307 Ark. 1, 817 S.W.2d 409 (1991). A defendant has no duty to bring himself to trial, and the time for trial begins running without demand by the defendant. Id. Accordingly, in the instant matter, the time for speedy trial began to run on April 5, 2000, the day that Crump properly filed her appeal in circuit court. Because the State has failed to establish that there were any excludable periods, it is clear that Crump's right to a speedy trial has been violated.

The writ of prohibition is granted.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CRUMP v. FORD
(Sep 27, 2001)