Hodges v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Hodges v. State

593 S.W.2d 494, 267 Ark. 1112, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1170

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 23, 1980

DocketCA CR 79-112

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 593 S.W.2d 494 (Hodges v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodges v. State, 593 S.W.2d 494, 267 Ark. 1112, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1170 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

George Howard, Jr., Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery by the trial court sitting as a jury and was sentenced to the Department of Correction for five years, with two years suspended. Appellant’s request for credit for the time spent in the county jail was denied.

Following appellant’s release from jail, after executing bond, on January 25, 1978, appellant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing on January 3, 1979. Pursuant to an alias warrant, appellant was arrested and confined to jail on a “no bond” status on January 5,1979, and remained incarcerated until the date of his conviction on March 30, 1979. Hence, appellant spent eighty-five (85) days in jail from the date of his arrest on the alias warrant to the date of his conviction.

The State argues that appellant is not entitled to credit since appellant’s confinement was due to his failure to appear and not because of indigency. In other words, appellant, in effect, was a fugitive from justice and that the facts in the instant case are functionally equivalent to those in Hughes v. State, 260 Ark. 399-A, 540 S.W. 2d.592 (1976), where our Supreme Court held that appellant was not entitled to credit for the period spent in Alaska as a fugitive from justice awaiting transportation back to Arkansas.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-904 (Repl. 1977) provides:

If a defendant is held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment, the court shall credit the time spent in custody against the sentence.

It is clear that no charge was lodged against appellant for failure to appear.¹

While appellant’s confinement on January 5th was pursuant to an alias warrant, it is plain he was held under the robbery charge pending final disposition of that charge. We are persuaded that appellant is entitled to credit for the period dating from January 5th to March 30th, aggregating a total of eighty-five (85) days.

The judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.

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

George Howard, Jr., Judge.

Appellant was convicted of robbery by the trial court sitting as a jury and was sentenced to the Department of Correction for five years, with two years suspended. Appellant’s request for credit for the time spent in the county jail was denied.

Following appellant’s release from jail, after executing bond, on January 25, 1978, appellant failed to appear at a scheduled hearing on January 3, 1979. Pursuant to an alias warrant, appellant was arrested and confined to jail on a “no bond” status on January 5,1979, and remained incarcerated until the date of his conviction on March 30, 1979. Hence, appellant spent eighty-five (85) days in jail from the date of his arrest on the alias warrant to the date of his conviction.

The State argues that appellant is not entitled to credit since appellant’s confinement was due to his failure to appear and not because of indigency. In other words, appellant, in effect, was a fugitive from justice and that the facts in the instant case are functionally equivalent to those in Hughes v. State, 260 Ark. 399-A, 540 S.W. 2d.592 (1976), where our Supreme Court held that appellant was not entitled to credit for the period spent in Alaska as a fugitive from justice awaiting transportation back to Arkansas.

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-904 (Repl. 1977) provides:

If a defendant is held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment, the court shall credit the time spent in custody against the sentence.

It is clear that no charge was lodged against appellant for failure to appear.¹

While appellant’s confinement on January 5th was pursuant to an alias warrant, it is plain he was held under the robbery charge pending final disposition of that charge. We are persuaded that appellant is entitled to credit for the period dating from January 5th to March 30th, aggregating a total of eighty-five (85) days.

The judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

593 S.W.2d 494, 267 Ark. 1112, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-state-arkctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack