State v. Tipton

779 S.W.2d 138, 300 Ark. 211, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 481
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 30, 1989
DocketCR 89-49
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 779 S.W.2d 138 (State v. Tipton) 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
State v. Tipton, 779 S.W.2d 138, 300 Ark. 211, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 481 (Ark. 1989).

Opinions

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.

The trial court dismissed with prejudice the second degree murder charge pending against appellee Gary D. Tipton because the State failed to bring Tipton to trial within the twelve-month period set forth in Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1(c). The State attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.10, alleging that jurisdiction lies in this court under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 29(l)(c). We find that under the circumstances the State has no right to appeal under Rule 36.10 and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

As a general rule, the State has no right to appeal except as conferred by constitution or rule of criminal procedure. State v. Hurst, 296 Ark. 132, 752 S.W.2d 749 (1988). Ark.R. Crim. P. 36.10(b) and (c) authorizes the State to appeal following either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution if “the attorney general, on inspecting the trial record, is satisfied that error has been committed to the prejudice of the state, and the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires review by the Supreme Court." (Emphasis added.)

It is clear that the State’s point for reversal that the trial court erred in dismissing the charge and in denying its motion for an excludable period does not involve the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law, a prerequisite for appeal under Rule 36.10(b) and (c). It simply concerns application of our speedy trial rules. Accordingly, the State cannot appeal from the trial court’s order.

Appeal dismissed.

Purtle, Dudley, and Newbern, JJ., concur. Glaze, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. Hickman and Hays, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

State v. Jones
2019 Ark. 138 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2019)
State v. Siegel
555 S.W.3d 410 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2018)
State v. Owens
2017 Ark. 362 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2017)
Bradford v. State
953 S.W.2d 549 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Cook v. State
878 S.W.2d 765 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1994)
Weaver v. State
852 S.W.2d 130 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1993)
State v. Mazur
847 S.W.2d 715 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1993)
State v. Edwards
838 S.W.2d 356 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)
Lukehart v. State
798 S.W.2d 117 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1990)
Kester v. State
797 S.W.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1990)
City of Little Rock v. Tibbett
784 S.W.2d 163 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1990)
State v. Tipton
779 S.W.2d 138 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
779 S.W.2d 138, 300 Ark. 211, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tipton-ark-1989.