The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down ten decisions this week; the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down fourteen. We'll note some of those decisions here, but since I'm catching up from my absence, their treatment may be abbreviated.
Hudson v. State, 2025 Ark. 129, addressed an argument that "the record could not be settled and remains insufficient" for review. On remand to settle the record, the trial court - over Hudson's objection - found that the record had been settled. On appeal, Hudson disagreed and argued that missing interviews prevented the Supreme Court from performing mandatory review of all adverse rulings.
The court set forth the applicable rules:
When there is an omission in the record, we consider whether the reconstructed record permits a full review of the proceedings from which an appeal has been taken. ... We have recognized that, while a verbatim record is certainly ideal, it is not required in every instance; instead, we evaluate whether the supplemental record enables a full and complete appellate review.
Id. at 16. Here, the supplemented record was sufficient for a full appellate review. The court explained why that was so in some detail. Thus, "we can review any adverse rulings" and reversal was not necessary.
Vasquez v. State, 2025 Ark. 134, found an abuse of discretion but held that it constituted harmless error. The court noted that "an abuse of discretion is established when the circuit court erroneously interprets or incorrectly applies the law." Id. at 9. The court elaborated on the applicable legal standard:
[T]he State is wrong to assume that our deference is tantamount to abdicating our role as a reviewing court. Judicial discretion means sound discretion guided by law. ... [J]udicial discretion is not arbitrary, nor is it governed by the court's whim or caprice; rather, it is dependent on the settled legal principles applicable to the case.
The trial court's admission of certain evidence did not comply with the applicable Rules of Evidence, and was thus an abuse of discretion. But the court subsequently found this to be harmless error.
Turning to the Court of Appeals, Duvall v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 435, notes that generally there is no appeal from a guilty plea. The court identified three exceptions. First, Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b) permits entry of a conditional plea of guilty premised on the appeal of a denied suppression motion. Second, an appeal may permitted if it concerns a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. And third, an appeal may be permitted of an alleged error that occurred as part of a sentencing proceeding that took place separate and apart from the plea itself.
Finally, Hedrick v. Pope, 2025 Ark. App. 438, considered the effect of a subsequent nunc pro tunc ("NPT") order on a previously filed notice of appeal. The original "final" order was filed on October 9; the notice of appeal was filed on October 13; and the NPT order was filed on October 26. No subsequent notice of appeal was filed, but Hedrick sought to appeal from the NPT order, too.
The court observed that "the better practice would have been to file an amended notice of appeal that included the" NPT order. Id. at 1, n.1. However, since the NPT order did not alter the October 9 order's findings of fact and conclusions of law - the NPT order had a different title and attached certain briefs referenced in both orders, that's all - the court reached the merits. "[I]n this specific instance, the nunc pro tunc order in no way altered the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were already referenced in the prior order." Id.
Thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment