Larry Wayne Mathis v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. App. 497

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 9, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 497 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-23-724

Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024

LARRY WAYNE MATHIS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST DIVISION APPELLANT [NO. 60CR-21-4454]

V. HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS DISMISSED

APPELLEE

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

Appellant Larry Mathis appeals from the August 1, 2023 order of the Pulaski County Circuit

Court granting the State’s motion to dismiss his appeal to that court from the Little Rock District Court.

Mathis argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal because his failure to include a docket

sheet in the timely filed certified record did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On November 8, 2021, following a bench trial, Mathis was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor

terroristic threatening in the second degree in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-301(b)

(Supp. 2023).1 He was sentenced to one year of jail time, suspended, and a one-year no-contact order

was issued. He was also fined $150 and ordered to pay $180 in court costs. On December 2, Mathis

The appeal transcript and appeal bond mistakenly state that Mathis was found guilty of 1

harassment. filed with the Pulaski County circuit clerk a notice of appeal of the conviction and certified copies of

documents from the district court proceeding.

After multiple continuances, the case was set for jury trial in the circuit court on August 1, 2023.

The day before the scheduled trial, the State moved to dismiss Mathis’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

arguing that he failed to perfect his appeal because a copy of the district court docket sheet was not

included in the appeal paperwork. Mathis filed a response to the State’s dismissal motion, arguing that

the judicial admissions and concessions made by the State in its dismissal motion “dispense[d] with the

need for a copy of the district court’s docket sheet as part of the certified copy of the December 2, 2021,

appeal transcript filed in the district court.”

The court heard arguments on the State’s motion to dismiss. Citing Arkansas Rule of Criminal

Procedure 36, the State asserted that a defendant is required to file a certified record of the proceedings

in the district court, which, at a minimum, must include a certified copy of the district court’s docket

sheet. The State argued that, here, Mathis “filed a notice of appeal, the unserved warrant, the informa

pauperis order and petition for his appeal, the citation to appear in district court, the affidavit, the no-

contact order and the order extending the no-contact order. There is no certified record of the

proceeding. There is no copy of the district court’s docket sheet.” The State further explained that a

circuit court acquires jurisdiction over an appeal from district court when a certified record is timely filed

in the circuit court. Because Mathis failed to include the docket sheet, no timely certified record was

filed; thus, jurisdiction over the appeal was not acquired.

Mathis denied that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction of his appeal. He argued that the appeal

packet contained a certified transcript from the district court and acknowledged that it did not contain a

docket sheet. Mathis contends that this omission is not fatal to his appeal, arguing that Arkansas Rule of

Criminal Procedure 36(c) is administrative rather than jurisdictional. Mathis stated that the appeal

2 transcript demonstrated that he attempted to acquire the proper paperwork from the district court clerk

to be filed within the thirty-day time limit to file an appeal; however, the district court failed to follow

through with his request. The circuit court disagreed that Mathis’s failure to include a docket sheet was

merely administrative. An order dismissing the appeal was entered on August 1. Mathis appealed.

The issue on appeal is whether a circuit court is divested of jurisdiction over a district court appeal

when the docket sheet is missing from a timely filed packet of appeal documents. Mathis argues that the

timely filing of an incomplete record conferred jurisdiction to the circuit court.

Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo.2 The first rule of interpreting a statute

is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning. 3 When

the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no occasion to resort to rules of statutory interpretation,

and the analysis need go no further.4

Rule 36 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure sets out the process to appeal a district

court criminal conviction to the circuit court. Rule 36(c) provides that a defendant appeals a district

court conviction by filing a certified record of the district court proceedings with the clerk of the circuit

court within thirty days. The record of the proceedings in the district court shall include, at a minimum,

a copy of the district court docket sheet and any bond or other security filed by the defendant to guarantee

the defendant’s appearance before the circuit court. 5 It is expressly the defendant’s responsibility to

2 State v. Torres, 2021 Ark. 22, 617 S.W.3d 232. 3 Tollett v. Wilson, 2020 Ark. 326, 608 S.W.3d 602. 4 Id. 5 Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(c).

3 timely file the record.6 Rule 36(c) additionally explains that, except as otherwise provided in subsection

(d) of this rule, the circuit court shall acquire jurisdiction of the appeal upon the filing of the certified

record in the office of the circuit clerk.

The plain language of Rule 36(c) provides that the certified record of the district court

proceedings must include a copy of the district court docket sheet to perfect an appeal. While a docket

sheet alone can amount to a certified record, no volume of other documents can qualify as a certified

record in the absence of a docket sheet. Mathis undisputedly failed to include the required docket sheet

in the record of proceedings filed with the circuit clerk. Because no docket sheet was included, a certified

record was not filed; therefore, according to the plain language of Rule 36(c), the circuit court never

acquired jurisdiction of the appeal.

Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Mathis’s argument that an incomplete record still vests the

circuit court with jurisdiction, and any deficiency in the certified appeal record may be cured by an order

of the circuit court to complete the record and “address any preliminary issues pertaining to the appeal.”

Again, the circuit court acquires jurisdiction over a de novo appeal from district court when a certified

record from the district court is timely filed in the circuit court.7 Here, because the documents presented

by Mathis on appeal did not include the minimum requirement of a docket sheet, he never tendered a

certified record to the circuit court. Therefore, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter any

“preliminary” orders.

Accordingly, because Mathis failed to file in the circuit court a certified record meeting the

minimum requirements of Rule 36(c), the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal of his district

6 Id. 7 State v. Van Voast, 2022 Ark. 195.

4 court conviction. Where, as here, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks

jurisdiction.8

Dismissed.

ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

Matt Kezhaya and Sonia Kezhaya, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

8 Samples v. State, 2012 Ark. 146.