APPEAL
FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CHICKASAWBA
DISTRICT [NO. 47BCR-19-73] HONORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE
Law
Office of Harris & Morrison, by: James W. Harris, for
appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
OPINION
ROBERT
J. GLADWIN, JUDGE
Cameron
Wells appeals the Mississippi County Circuit Court's
order of March 28, 2019, which found, among other things,
that Wells's notice of appeal filed in the circuit court
on March 6, 2019, was from his battery-third conviction in
the district court on December 12, 2018, and was untimely.
Wells argues that the circuit court erred by (1) dismissing
his appeal and remanding the matter to the district court;
(2)finding that it did not have superintending authority over
the district court; and (3)finding it was without
jurisdiction to establish a bond for the appeal from the
district court. We dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction under Rule 36 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal
Procedure (2018).
On
December 12, 2018, Wells was found guilty of third-degree
battery in the Blytheville District Court. He was sentenced
to eleven months in jail, suspended; fifteen days of
electronic monitoring; restitution; and a mutual no-contact
order. Wells was told in open court that he had thirty days
to appeal from the sentencing order or judgment entered
December 12 and that he should return to the district court
if he did not appeal so that he could be fitted with an
electronic-monitoring device.[1] No appeal was filed within thirty
days. Wells did not reappear in the district court within
thirty days, and a failure-to-appear (FTA) warrant was issued
on January 17, 2019, in the Blytheville District Court.
When
Wells appeared in the district court on a new felony charge
on March 4, 2019, he was held on the FTA charge in the
battery case. He appeared the next day, March 5, in the
district court and pled guilty to FTA. He was sentenced to
$290 in fines and $100 in costs.
On
March 6, 2019, in the circuit court, Wells filed a notice of
appeal and attached a copy of the district court docket sheet
in his third-degree-battery case. The notice of appeal sets
forth the history of the case, including the FTA
"citation" from March 5, and it alleges that Wells
was not given notice of the FTA warrant. The notice of appeal
states, "Defendant hereby gives notice to the State of
Arkansas that he appeals from District Court to Circuit
Court, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Arkansas Rules of
Criminal Procedure." It also states that Wells's
"due process rights have been violated under both the
U.S. Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution."
On
March 6, 2019, the circuit court filed a bond order under a
"not-yet-filed" or "NYF" charge in the
district court and also under the FTA that followed the
battery conviction. The bond order released Wells upon
posting of a cash surety bond in the amount of $50, 000. The
bond was to stand for both cases—(1) the unfiled,
pending felony matter; and (2) the misdemeanor appeal.
On
March 7, 2019, a supplement to the bond order was filed,
which states:
1. The court advised counsel that its previous order (the
Bond Order) was issued based on the following findings and
observations:
a) The defendant's Notice of Appeal filed March 6, 2019,
and attached exhibit A (District Court docket sheet), on its
face demonstrates issues which this court finds to be
appealable issues— arising out of the District Court
case 2018-04308 (battery 3rd degree) docket, regardless of
defendant's failure to timely file an appeal of the
initial finding or sentencing. Apparent appealable issues
include, but are not limited to issuance/disposition of the
alleged failure to appear charges on the underlying charge
and requirement of a $2500 cash bond, both of which this
court finds could be punitive in nature. Further possible
issues of due process related to post conviction actions are
presented for a court of record to consider.
d) Ultimate determination of whether defendant has an
appealable action (or the extent thereof) and/or disposition
is subject to adjudication by the assigned Circuit Judge at a
properly scheduled hearing.
e) Upon entry of the Bond Order, jurisdiction of all related
issues, including release on bond, are vested ...