Diane v. Ponder

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Diane v. Ponder

479 S.W.2d 567, 252 Ark. 414, 1972 Ark. LEXIS 1615

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 1, 1972

Docket5-5854

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 479 S.W.2d 567 (Diane v. Ponder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Diane v. Ponder, 479 S.W.2d 567, 252 Ark. 414, 1972 Ark. LEXIS 1615 (Ark. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Petitioner was charged in the Newport Municipal Court with the offense of disturbing the peace. She filed a motion to quash the affidavit for warrant of arrest and the warrant itself. The motions were overruled and she was convicted. She appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court where she renewed her motions to quash. When they were overruled she filed in this court her petition for a writ of prohibition. Prohibition does not lie unless the court is wholly without jurisdiction of the subject matter, or where there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. State ex rel Purcell v. Nelson, 246 Ark. 210, 438 S.W. 2d 33 (1969).

The jurisdiction of the respondent to try the accused was not affected by any deficiency in the affidavit for warrant or the warrant itself. Cassady v. State, 249 Ark. 1040, 463 S.W. 2d 96 (1971); Estes v. State, 246 Ark. 1145, 442 S.W. 2d 221 (1969); Perkins v. City of Little Rock, 232 Ark. 739, 339 S.W. 2d 859 (1960). Finally, it cannot be questioned that petitioner, had she been convicted in circuit court, would have had a right to appeal.

We have not overlooked the citations of authority from federal jurisdictions. They deal mostly with search warrants. Others interpret the federal rules of. criminal procedure. We are convinced that our cited holdings are not repugnant to any decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Petition denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lyle Brown, Justice.

Petitioner was charged in the Newport Municipal Court with the offense of disturbing the peace. She filed a motion to quash the affidavit for warrant of arrest and the warrant itself. The motions were overruled and she was convicted. She appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court where she renewed her motions to quash. When they were overruled she filed in this court her petition for a writ of prohibition. Prohibition does not lie unless the court is wholly without jurisdiction of the subject matter, or where there is no adequate remedy by appeal or otherwise. State ex rel Purcell v. Nelson, 246 Ark. 210, 438 S.W. 2d 33 (1969).

The jurisdiction of the respondent to try the accused was not affected by any deficiency in the affidavit for warrant or the warrant itself. Cassady v. State, 249 Ark. 1040, 463 S.W. 2d 96 (1971); Estes v. State, 246 Ark. 1145, 442 S.W. 2d 221 (1969); Perkins v. City of Little Rock, 232 Ark. 739, 339 S.W. 2d 859 (1960). Finally, it cannot be questioned that petitioner, had she been convicted in circuit court, would have had a right to appeal.

We have not overlooked the citations of authority from federal jurisdictions. They deal mostly with search warrants. Others interpret the federal rules of. criminal procedure. We are convinced that our cited holdings are not repugnant to any decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.2d 567, 252 Ark. 414, 1972 Ark. LEXIS 1615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diane-v-ponder-ark-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack