Steven Ray Casey v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. App. 516, 699 S.W.3d 860

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: October 30, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 516 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-23-593

STEVEN RAY CASEY Opinion Delivered October 30, 2024 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT [NO. 47BCR-17-306] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE KIMBERLY BOLING BIBB, JUDGE

REVERSED AND DISMISSED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Chief Judge

This appeal from probation-revocation proceedings returns to us after a remand in

June to settle the record. Casey v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 362. We didn’t know quite enough

then. We still have questions now, but the record presented does not establish the circuit

court had jurisdiction to revoke Steven Casey’s probation when it did. So the judgment

must be reversed and the petition to revoke dismissed.

On 6 June 2018, Casey received forty-eight months’ probation in the Mississippi

County Circuit Court (case No. 47BCR-17-306) after pleading guilty to possession of a

controlled substance, methamphetamine. In January 2022, the State petitioned to revoke

his probation for allegations that included violating a condition not to “commit a criminal

offense punishable by imprisonment” in December 2021. The State brought separate felony charges for that conduct, which included felony fleeing, in the same court (case No.

47BCR-22-15).

Some proceedings were conducted jointly in the 17-306 case (as a revocation matter)

and the 22-15 case (as a pretrial matter). We have the revocation half. On 22 February

2022, Casey appeared in circuit court, and the prosecuting attorney served him with the

revocation petition. The court entered a form scheduling order with case numbers 47BCR-

22-15 and “47BCR-17-306 PTR” filled in. Casey signed it. His next court date in both

cases was 6 May 2022—thirty days before the end of his probation period.

Ordinarily, the court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation ends when probation ends.

Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229, 234, 85 S.W.3d 914, 917 (2002). But Arkansas Code

Annotated section 16-93-308 (Supp. 2023) extends the court’s jurisdiction to revoke for a

“violation of probation” if, before the probation term ends, (1) the defendant is arrested for

a violation; (2) a warrant is issued for the defendant’s arrest for a violation; (3) a petition to

revoke the defendant’s probation has been filed, if an arrest warrant is issued within thirty

days; or (4) the defendant has been issued either a citation in lieu of arrest under Ark. R.

Crim. P. 5 or served a summons under Ark. R. Crim. P. 6 for a violation. Rowton v. State,

2020 Ark. App. 174, at 13, 598 S.W.3d 522, 529–30 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-308(f)

(Supp. 2019)).

May 6 arrived, but Casey didn’t show. The circuit court issued an arrest warrant in

both case numbers, which was served 17 May 2022. A 23 May 2022 order continued the

jury trial to August 2022—presumably in the felony case. Casey signed it too. A

2 handwritten note at the end, initialed by the circuit judge, reads “Ct sets aside the alias

warrant.”

No revocation hearing took place within the probation period.1

The parties argue about whether the May 6 warrant satisfied the conditions in section

308(f) to extend the court’s jurisdiction. The reader might suspect they’re overthinking

this: if Casey was not arrested, issued a citation, or served with a summons for a probation

violation—any of which would have extended the court’s jurisdiction already—how did he

know to show up at the hearing on February 22? That mystery is for the ages. Nothing in

the docket suggests Casey would have been expected, much less compelled, to appear that

day. The hearing transcript suggests (1) the court expected to arraign him on the petition

to revoke; (2) the prosecutor had the petition ready to serve; and (3) Casey thought he was

in court for something else—a felony charge, perhaps in the related case.

1 The State contended in circuit court that serving Casey with the petition at the February 22 hearing extended the court’s jurisdiction to revoke. It abandons that argument on appeal.

3 Which leaves the May 6 warrant:

The parties agree “FTA” means “failure to appear.” If the writing stopped there, it

would be plain that the warrant did not extend the court’s jurisdiction. Our supreme court

held in Carter that a bench warrant (or “alias warrant”) for failing to appear at a probation-

revocation hearing “was not a warrant for [the defendant’s] arrest for violation of probation.”

350 Ark. at 235, 85 S.W.3d at 918. A line of cases addressing different fact patterns has

followed. Hanson v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 222; Rowton, supra; Trif v. State, 2016 Ark. App.

452, 503 S.W.3d 802.

Casey argues this is just an alias warrant for failure to appear. The State argues the

warrant was also “for the underlying charge of possession of a controlled substance, as well

as the charge of fleeing, which was one of the alleged probation violations in the petition

to revoke.” Casey is right: we have an alias warrant for failing to appear at a hearing that

was set in two cases. The State failed to properly extend circuit court jurisdiction, so the

petition to revoke fails. Consequently, the judgment is reversed and the petition dismissed.

4 Reversed and dismissed.

GLADWIN and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Thompson & Holmes, by: Jake Holmes, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.