{
  "id": 6143301,
  "name": "William Jesse BARTLEY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bartley v. State",
  "decision_date": "2001-05-09",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 00-958",
  "first_page": "452",
  "last_page": "455",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ark. App. 452"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "45 S.W.3d 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298553
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892741
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 Ark. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        377542
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/332/0083-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 344,
    "char_count": 5356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.74320722722823e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4946597272659526
    },
    "sha256": "f53a34d22e082dec50a6269ba2dabaf02bf6e15d8410a599942b31bf59ae93ed",
    "simhash": "1:1a08dc28e2574c0c",
    "word_count": 898
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:33:57.447032+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stroud, C.J., and Pittman, J., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "William Jesse BARTLEY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ANDREE Layton Roaf, Judge.\nWilliam Jesse Bartley was .found in criminal contempt of court in Benton County Circuit Court for appearing without a lawyer at his arraignment on hot-check charges. Upon being released after his arrest, Bartley had signed a form entitled \u201cBenton County Circuit Court Attorney Acknowledgment\u201d that stated\u201dyou must have an attorney prior to appearing in court for arraignment.\u201d When he arrived .at the arraignment without an attorney and acknowledged to the trial judge that he was able to read the notice and remembered doing so, Bartley was sentenced to three days in the Benton County Jail. On appeal, he argues that in finding him in contempt, the trial court violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions. The State has conceded error and we agree. We therefore reverse.\nThe Attorney Acknowledgment form at issue was further captioned: \u201cNOTICE TO ALL PERSONS BEING CHARGED WITH FELONY OFFENSES,\u201d and provided in pertinent part,\nYou are required to appear in Benton County Circuit Court, Division _I_ for Arraignment on 5-15-00 at 8:00 a.m. You must have an attorney prior to appearing in court for arraignment. If you cannot afford an attorney, you must contact the Benton County Public Defender\u2019s Office at:\n221 South Main Street Bentonville, Arkansas 72712\nOr call at (501) 271-1028\nBartley signed the form under the following statement: \u201cI have read and understand that I must have an attorney present at my arraignment.\u201d\nWhen Bartley appeared at his arraignment, the trial judge inquired whether Bartley had a lawyer, and when he told the judge that he did not, the judge asked if Bartley had made an effort to secure representation. Bartley replied that he spoke to a lawyer that day and that he thought that he needed to come to court to have one appointed. Bartley responded to the judge\u2019s questions that he was twenty-three years old, could read and write, had a ninth-grade education, and that he remembered reading the notice. However, when the judge asked Bartley whether he remembered what the notice said and if he had gone to the public defender\u2019s office prior to the arraignment, Bartley responded in the negative, and the trial judge found him in contempt.\nBartley argues that his rights under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 10, of the Arkansas Constitution were violated for three reasons: 1) he was never served with a signed and filed court order directing him to bring an attorney to the arraignment; 2) the document that he was given did not state the consequences for his failure to bring an attorney to the arraignment; and 3) even if the trial court had ordered him to bring an attorney to the arraignment, it was still error because he has a constitutional right to represent himself.\nThe standard of review in a case of criminal contempt requires this court to view the record in the light most favorable to the trial judge\u2019s decision and to sustain that decision if it is supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences. Etoch v. State, 332 Ark. 83, 964 S.W.2d 798 (1998). If an act interferes with the order of the court\u2019s business or proceedings or reflects upon the court\u2019s integrity, that act is deemed contemptuous. Id. A court\u2019s contempt power may be wielded to preserve the court\u2019s power and dignity, to punish disobedience of the court\u2019s orders, and to preserve and enforce the parties\u2019 rights. Id.\nWe agree that the notice that Bartley was given upon his release was not a court order, in that it was neither signed by a judge nor filed for record. Moreover, while the notice contained what appeared to be mandatory language, Bartley was not informed of the consequences of his failure to comply with its terms. In Fitzhugh v. State, 296 Ark. 137, 752 S.W.2d 275 (1988), the supreme court held that criminal penalties may not be imposed on an alleged contemnor who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of criminal proceedings; the Due Process Clause requires that an alleged contemnor be notified that a charge of contempt is pending against him and be informed of the specific nature of that charge. Notice of the charge, indeed actual, notice that failure to bring an attorney to the arraignment constituted a contemptuous act, was not given in this case. Therefore, the judgment of conviction for contempt must be reversed.\nWe further agree that Bartley has a right under our federal and state constitutions to waive representation by counsel and that it' would be reversible error for the trial court not to allow Bartley to make a knowing and intelligent waiver of this right. See Akins v. State, 330 Ark. 228, 955 S.W.2d 483 (1997). However, it is apparent from the record that Bartley was not seeking to waive his right to counsel, but rather had not followed the stated procedures required to secure representation by the Benton County Public Defender\u2019s Office. Accordingly, we do not find this alleged constitutional deprivation to be of any moment.\nReversed and dismissed.\nStroud, C.J., and Pittman, J., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ANDREE Layton Roaf, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Doug Norwood and Susan Lusby, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeffrey Weber, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Jesse BARTLEY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 00-958\n45 S.W.3d 387\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division III\nOpinion delivered May 9, 2001\nDoug Norwood and Susan Lusby, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeffrey Weber, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0452-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 481
}