{ "id": 6655742, "name": "Walter Richmond HAYNES v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Haynes v. State", "decision_date": "1994-03-16", "docket_number": "CA CR 93-552", "first_page": "122", "last_page": "123", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "45 Ark. App. 122" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "872 S.W.2d 85" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "41 Ark. App. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6139185 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/41/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. App. 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138968 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/37/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Ark. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1678859 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" }, { "page": "200", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/261/0648-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 260, "char_count": 3678, "ocr_confidence": 0.864, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1795683841027025 }, "sha256": "98ffc861c63faefb1ad0098b080e7a5bb8417fd2cda69a60a8b4eb93bf38a6a1", "simhash": "1:906a40a4758ee9d1", "word_count": 634 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:36.699911+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Pittman and Cooper, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Walter Richmond HAYNES v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Judith Rogers, Judge.\nOn appeal from municipal court, the appellant, Walter Richmond Haynes, was convicted in a jury trial of driving while intoxicated, driving on a suspended license and carrying a weapon. For DWI, appellant was sentenced to a year in the county jail, assessed a fine of $1,000 and his driver\u2019s license was suspended for a period of 120 days. For driving on a suspended license, he was sentenced to six months in jail and fined $500. For carrying a weapon, appellant was sentenced to a year in jail with a fine of $1,000. As his sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw the appeal from municipal court. We find no error and affirm.\nOn July 22, 1992, the appellant was found guilty of the above-mentioned offenses in the Union County Municipal Court. Appellant thereafter perfected an appeal to the Circuit Court of Union \u25a0 County. Immediately before the trial began, on March 11, 1993, appellant moved to dismiss the appeal from municipal court. The prosecution objected to a dismissal, stating that it was prepared for trial and that the county had gone to great expense in summoning a jury. The trial court declined appellant\u2019s request to withdraw the appeal, a jury was impaneled and the case proceeded to trial.\nOn appeal, appellant contends that he possessed an unqualified right to dismiss the appeal. In so arguing, appellant concedes that his contention is contrary to the supreme court\u2019s opinion in Newberry v. State, 261 Ark. 648, 551 S.W.2d 199 (1977), where it was held that the dismissal of such an appeal is a decision lying within the discretion of the circuit judge, and not a matter subject to the unilateral control of the accused. The court explained:\nThe court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the appeal. When an appeal takes a case to a purely appellate court, for a review of the judgment of a trial court, the appellant has a right to dismiss the appeal and submit to the judgment, if there is no prejudice to the appellee. But when the appeal is to an intermediate court for a trial de novo, the prosecution is as much a party to the transaction as it was in the court below. The intermediate court, and not the accused, is then vested with the power of dismissal. The court might, for example, find the original sentence to be inappropriate or think a trial to be a necessary step toward discouraging dilatory appeals. In the case at bar we perceive no basis for saying that the circuit judge abused his discretion in the matter.\nId. at 649, 551 S.W.2d at 200 (citations omitted).\nWhile appellant acknowledges the Newberry decision, he nevertheless argues that the opinion is inconsistent with provisions of the Arkansas Constitution which repose in the individual the right to a jury trial, and the right to a public and speedy trial. This argument, however, was not presented to the trial court, and thus it is not preserved for appeal. Under our well-settled rule, this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Skiver v. State, 37 Ark. App. 146, 826 S.W.2d 309 (1992). Even constitutional issues may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Duvall v. State, 41 Ark. App. 148, 852 S.W.2d 144 (1993). We otherwise cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the appeal, and we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nPittman and Cooper, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Judith Rogers, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jan Thornton, for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Senior Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Walter Richmond HAYNES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 93-552\n872 S.W.2d 85\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered March 16, 1994\nJan Thornton, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Senior Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0122-01", "first_page_order": 146, "last_page_order": 147 }