Walker v. State

555 S.W.2d 228, 262 Ark. 215, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 1778
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedSeptember 19, 1977
DocketCR 77-67
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 555 S.W.2d 228 (Walker v. State) 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
Walker v. State, 555 S.W.2d 228, 262 Ark. 215, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 1778 (Ark. 1977).

Opinion

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant, who had received a suspended sentence upon some forgery and uttering charges in 1974, was arrested on July 29, 1976 on a theft of property charge. Pursuant to a petition for revocation filed on November 23, 1976, the trial court on December 1, 1976, revoked a portion of appellant’s suspended sentence. For reversal appellant contends that he was entitled to have the petition for revocation dismissed because of the 60 day limitation set out in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1209(2) (1976 Crim. Code). That statute in so far as applicable provides:

“A suspension or probation shall not be revoked except after a revocation hearing. Such hearing shall be conducted by the court that suspended imposition of sentence on defendant or placed him on probation within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 60 days, after the defendant’s arrest. ...” [Emphasis ours]

The State to support the action of the trial court points out that the July 29th arrest was upon a theft of property charge and was not an arrest for a revocation or suspension of the suspended sentence pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1208 (1976 Ark. Crim. Code). The State also contends that the 60 day time limit in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1209(2), supra, runs from the date of the arrest provided for in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1208 (1976 Ark. Crim. Code).

When we give a rational interpretation to the 60 day limitation, in accordance with the intent and purposes of the statute, we must agree with the State’s interpretation of the statute. It follows that the trial court did not err in revoking the suspended sentence.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Holmes v. State
803 S.W.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1991)
Vann v. State
698 S.W.2d 814 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1985)
Reynolds v. State
666 S.W.2d 396 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1984)
Lark v. State
637 S.W.2d 529 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1982)
Boone v. State
603 S.W.2d 410 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1980)
Gordon v. State
601 S.W.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1980)
Haskins v. State
572 S.W.2d 411 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1978)
Lincoln v. State
558 S.W.2d 146 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1977)
Blake v. State
556 S.W.2d 427 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 S.W.2d 228, 262 Ark. 215, 1977 Ark. LEXIS 1778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-state-ark-1977.