The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down six decisions today, March 13, 2025; the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down nineteen signed opinions yesterday. Some of the Court of Appeals decisions are worth noting here.
A revocation of SIS case, Nelson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 151, was remanded to settle and supplement the record. The court noted the general rule:
We require the entire record to properly confirm our jurisdiction, meaning that we need to ensure that the circuit court had the authority to revoke and determine whether there might be an illegal sentence issue. Without a complete record, we cannot make those determinations.
Id.at 2. The matter was remanded to settle and supplement the record "with the necessary documentation containing the 2014 felony information, the original conditions of Nelson's SIS issued in 2014, and the 2014 judgment." Id. at 2-3.
In the companion case of Nelson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 152, Nelson argued that the prosecutor's "Short Report of Circumstances" was erroneous in a number of ways. The court rejected these arguments for two reasons. First, "Nelson's arguments are not preserved for appeal because he did not present them to the circuit court. ... [O]bjections to forms filed with the sentencing order, such as a short report, must be presented to the circuit court to be preserved for appeal." Second, because Nelson did not identify any report factors that should have been selected, he did not demonstrate error or prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed in Seaside Pools v. Curtis, 2025 Ark. App. 155, for failure to comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Seaside installed a pool for the Curtises. When they didn't complete payments, Seaside brought an action against them, Generations Bank, and the Department of Finance and Administration (alleging the latter two entities might have some interest in the property). Ultimately, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Curtises. Seaside appealed, but in its notice of appeal, it did not abandon pending but unresolved claims under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e).
The court noted the general rules. Appeals can be taken from a final judgment or decree. Determining finality is a jurisdictional question that may be raised by the court at any time. When there are multiple claims for relief or multiple parties involved, an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims, or the rights/liabilities of fewer than all the parties, is not a final, appealable order. Dismissal of a claim without prejudice does not create finality.
Untangling the procedural situation, the Seaside court determined that DFA and the claims against it had not been expressly dismissed. Generations had not been dismissed as a party, and the claims against it had only been dismissed without prejudice. Between those facts, the failure of Seaside to abandon its unresolved claims, and "no attempt to comply with Rule 54(b)," the court found that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Rogers v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Child, 2025 Ark. App. 162, involved the termination of parental rights. One of Rogers' arguments was that termination of her parental rights was not in the minor child's best interest, because Rogers had custody of the child's sister - termination would interfere with the sibling relationship. But this argument was not preserved for review because Rogers did not make it at the termination hearing. "Even in termination cases, arguments raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed." Id. at 9.
In Gregory v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 164, the defendant objected to certain testimony once, but did not object when other victims were asked the same question. This issue was not preserved for appeal. "A defendant must object at the first opportunity, and he must then renew his objection each time the issue is raised; otherwise, he has waived his argument regarding that issue on appeal." Id. at 10.
Finally, in Le v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 165, the court decided an appeal concerning an expired commitment order. The court considered the merits "because cases like this will always become moot before litigation can run its course." Id. at 4 n.1.
Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment