{ "id": 6140516, "name": "Jimmy Dale GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. State", "decision_date": "1988-09-14", "docket_number": "CA CR 88-32", "first_page": "234", "last_page": "237", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 Ark. App. 234" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "756 S.W.2d 921" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "282 Ark. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1740689 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/282/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-17-206", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(d)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 Ark. 975", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725607 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/228/0975-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 Ark. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1869806 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/293/0246-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 355, "char_count": 5432, "ocr_confidence": 0.83, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1329240581850794e-07, "percentile": 0.5764029099766048 }, "sha256": "5d8000acd42d1e77229c47b9f106b819564e4a0c470e140be4ad65839e336e79", "simhash": "1:27aac35f4915d83f", "word_count": 909 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:05.220266+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cooper and Coulson, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Jimmy Dale GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge.\nThe appellant in this case was convicted in the Elkins Municipal Court for driving while intoxicated. On appeal to circuit court, he was again convicted. In his appeal to this court, the appellant argues that the City of Elkins could not be the plaintiff in a criminal prosecution for violation of a state law; that it could not be the plaintiff in a case where the offense occurred outside the city limits; and that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to change the plaintiff to the State of Arkansas in the appeal from municipal court. We do not agree, and we affirm the conviction.\nBy stipulation, the record shows that on January 25,1987, at approximately 2:18 a.m., appellant was westbound on Highway 45 near Goshen, Arkansas, and Washington County Deputy Otis Harris was eastbound on the same road. As Deputy Harris approached appellant\u2019s vehicle, he observed appellant\u2019s car cross the center line of the road, move back to the right side, then go off onto the shoulder of the road. Deputy Harris turned around and followed appellant\u2019s car for a short time. He observed it cross the center line again, and saw it sway in the east-bound lane as it traveled east. Harris stopped appellant and noticed a strong odor of alcohol about him. Appellant admitted he had consumed a \u201ccouple of beers.\u201d Harris administered field sobriety tests which appellant failed. He was then taken to the Washington County Sheriff\u2019s Office and given a breathalyzer test.\nThe stipulation states that appellant\u2019s rights were read to him and that the breathalyzer test was administered on a properly certified and standardized machine by an officer certified to perform the test. Appellant registered 0.15%. He was found guilty of D WI and sentenced to pay a fine of $ 150.00, court costs of $306.75, his driver\u2019s license was suspended for 90 days and he was ordered to attend safe driving school. We take judicial notice that the City of Elkins is in Washington County, and it is stipulated that appellant was arrested in that county but outside the city limits of Elkins.\nIn his appeal to this court appellant first argues that the City of Elkins cannot be plaintiff in a criminal prosecution for violation of state law because Rule 1.5 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:\nAll prosecutions for violations of the criminal laws of this state shall be in the name of the State of Arkansas, provided that this rule shall in no way afFect the distribution, as provided by law, of moneys collected by municipal courts.\nThe Arkansas Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Urich v. State, 293 Ark. 246, 737 S.W.2d 155 (1987).\nThat municipal courts may exercise jurisdiction over state misdemeanor violations is settled law. Article 7, \u00a7 1 of the Arkansas Constitution provides:\nThe judicial power of the State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in circuit courts, in county and probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The General Assembly may also vest such jurisdiction as may be deemed necessary in municipal corporation courts\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-702 establishes municipal courts and \u00a7 22-709 grants jurisdiction to municipal courts over misdemeanors.\nThe same issue was raised in Ex Parte Hornsby, 228 Ark. 975, 311 S.W.2d 529 (1958), where the petitioner was convicted in municipal court of violating a state DWI statute. We found the argument without merit, citing Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-709.\n293 Ark. at 247. It would have been correct to have styled this case in municipal court as \u201cState of Arkansas v. Jimmy Dale Graham\u201d and this might have prevented this appeal; however, the style naming the plaintiff as the \u201cCity of Elkins\u201d did not affect the court\u2019s jurisdiction to try the crime charged.\nNext, appellant argues that the City of Elkins cannot be the plaintiff in a case where the offense happened outside its city limits. It was stipulated that appellant was arrested in rural Washington County. The first sentence of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-709 (Repl. 1962) [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-17-206(d) (1987)] provides:\nThe municipal courts shall have original jurisdiction coextensive with the county wherein the said court is situated ....\nSee also, Horn v. State, 282 Ark. 75, 665 S.W.2d 880 (1984).\nFinally, appellant argues that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to change plaintiffs in an appeal from a municipal court. Actually, the real party in interest was not changed because the city, county and state were each interested in the prosecution of the crime. Furthermore, the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Article 7, \u00a7 14 provides that:\nThe circuit courts shall exercise a superintending control and appellate jurisdiction over county, probate, court of common pleas and corporation courts and justices of the peace, and shall have power to issue, hear and determine all the necessary writs to carry into effect their general and specific powers, any of which writs may be issued upon order of the judge of the appropriate court in vacation.\nThus, the circuit court had jurisdiction to try this case and the style of its judgment \u201cState of Arkansas, County of Washington\u201d was proper.\nAffirmed.\nCooper and Coulson, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "WQ Hall, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jimmy Dale GRAHAM v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 88-32\n756 S.W.2d 921\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered September 14, 1988\nWQ Hall, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0234-01", "first_page_order": 262, "last_page_order": 265 }