{
  "id": 6140563,
  "name": "Allen L. LAMPKIN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lampkin v. State",
  "decision_date": "2008-02-13",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 07-568",
  "first_page": "275",
  "last_page": "278",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ark. App. 275"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "275 S.W.3d 679"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "365 Ark. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3287391
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/365/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 Ark. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        36050
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/354/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-96-508",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 371,
    "char_count": 5989,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.768,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5223480210622318
    },
    "sha256": "b685db279557639eb32d369c743e53ddf6b48776feb7249dc2cdd617d48d109d",
    "simhash": "1:d6dfc08ccaa7ead1",
    "word_count": 1008
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:59:08.797430+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Robbins and Marshall, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Allen L. LAMPKIN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.\nAllen Lampkin was found guilty in district court of driving while intoxicated. He appealed to the circuit court. The issue before this court is whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Lampkin\u2019s appeal and remanding the case back to the district court because it determined that Lampkin failed to appear without good cause on the date of his trial. We hold that the circuit court erred in determining that Lampkin failed to appear without good cause, as it recalled the case after Lampkin initially failed to appear, asked Lampkin what he wanted to do, and indicated that \u201cwe\u2019re having a trial today.\u201d Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to circuit court.\nLampkin waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial was set for 10:00 a.m. on August 28, 2006. When Lampkin\u2019s case was first called, he was not in the courtroom. The deputy prosecuting attorney informed the court that John May, Lampkin\u2019s counsel, was in the hallway, and further stated that \u201cI think he\u2019s probably negotiating. They may be out in the hall.\u201d Thereafter, when neither Lampkin or his attorney answered the bailiffs call, the circuit court announced, \u201cRemand to district court.\u201d\nNonetheless, the court recalled Lampkin\u2019s case later the same day. The State indicated that it had no objection to Lampkin entering a negotiated guilty plea. May informed the court that \u201c[Lampkin\u2019s] case was called up while we were out in the hall and you initially remanded it.\u201d May then reiterated that he and the. State had negotiated a guilty plea. When the court asked Lampkin what he wanted, Lampkin said he wanted to go to trial but that the State had not provided the name of one of the officers at the scene.\nThe following exchange then took place:\nCourt: Do you want me to remand this to district court?\nDefendant: No, sir. I would like to get the officers to give us the trooper\u2019s name and go forward with trial.\nCourt: Okay, that\u2019s \u2014 you\u2019re here for trial today.\nDefendant: I know.\nCourt: We\u2019re having a trial today.\nLampkin again indicated his willingness to proceed to trial but again requested that the unidentified officer be called as a witness. The court informed Lampkin that,\u201dIt doesn\u2019t work that way,\u201d and then the following exchange occurred:\nCourt: Okay, I\u2019m going to remand this to district court.\nDefendant: Well, then, I want to do the plea deal, Your Honor.\nCourt: I\u2019ve already remanded it to district court because you didn\u2019t come in when I called your name.\nThe relevant statute provides that\n[i]f the appellant shall fail to appear in the circuit court when the case is set for trial or the judge . . . then the circuit court may, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, affirm the judgment and enter judgment against the appellant for the same fine or penalty that was imposed in the court of limited jurisdiction, with costs.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-96-508 (Repl. 2006) (emphasis added). We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo and construe criminal statutes strictly, resolving any doubts in favor of the defendant. See Stivers v. State, 354 Ark. 140, 118 S.W.3d 558 (2003). We also adhere to the basic rule of statutory construction, which is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Id.\nIn essence, the circuit court\u2019s \u201cremand\u201d functioned as a dismissal of Lampkin\u2019s appeal, which is permissible even though \u00a7 16-96-508 only authorizes a circuit court to affirm the district court\u2019s judgment. See Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192, 226 S.W.3d 766 (2006). Nonetheless, we reverse because it was an abuse of discretion for the circuit court to dismiss Lampkin\u2019s case based on his initial \u201cfailure to appear\u201d when the case was thereafter recalled the same day, Lampkin was present when the case was recalled, and the court indicated that \u201cwe\u2019re having a trial today.\u201d\nAs Lampkin argues, the purpose of \u00a7 16-96-508 is to facilitate the court\u2019s power to control its own trial docket. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 27.2 (stating that the court shall control the trial calendar and the scheduling of cases on the calendar). It is apparent from the record that Lampkin\u2019s initial failure to appear did not disrupt the court\u2019s trial docket. This was a bench trial. No jury was seated and then dismissed when Lampkin failed to initially appear.\nRather, the circuit court purported to dismiss the appeal, yet recalled the case the same day. Lampkin appeared when the case was recalled. The court asked Lampkin what he wanted to do and then stated that \u201cwe\u2019re having a trial today.\u201d It subsequently remanded the case based on Lampkin\u2019s initial failure to appear only offer Lampkin voiced his complaints about the discovery regarding a specific witness. In so doing, the court also ignored the plea agreement that had been reached by the parties.\nCertainly, a circuit court may change a ruling during the course of a proceeding. Here, however, the court did not merely change a ruling. Rather, it initially purported to dismiss the appeal but then, by its further statements, acted as though no final ruling had been made or as though any interim ruling had been reversed. Given that, it was an abuse of discretion for the court to thereafter dismiss the appeal pursuant to \u00a7 16-96-508 based on Lampkin\u2019s initial failure to appear.\nReversed and remanded.\nRobbins and Marshall, JJ., agree.\nLampkin raised this argument during a prior proceeding; the State obtained a continuance but apparently never provided the information.\nFor example, \u00a7 16-96-508 has been strictly interpreted to prohibit a circuit judge from dismissing an appeal based on a defendant\u2019s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference. See Ayala, infra.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wendell L. Griffen, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Mac Carder, Deputy-Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, for appellant.",
      "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Allen L. LAMPKIN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 07-568\n275 S.W.3d 679\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 13, 2008\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Mac Carder, Deputy-Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0275-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 308
}