{
  "id": 8717611,
  "name": "Ronnie Lee ELSER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Elser v. State",
  "decision_date": "1967-09-18",
  "docket_number": "5284",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ark. 34"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "418 S.W.2d 389"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "51 A. L. R. 2d 326",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646630
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 449,
    "char_count": 7220,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.798075024844438e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7159658729138263
    },
    "sha256": "977f463f2ab53fa59c89c736f36510f521351e9f100da1a2e5cdd1a512bf9a3e",
    "simhash": "1:7de4a67178ce498a",
    "word_count": 1320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:41.806727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ronnie Lee ELSER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is a petition for post-conviction relief under our Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. 239 Ark. 850a. The trial court denied the petition.\nIn October, 1965, the appellant, Ronnie Lee Elser, and a codefendant, Victor Houk, were charged with having robbed two motels in Garland county. At the arraignment Elser declined the offer of the trial judge, P. E. Dobbs, to appoint counsel for him. Elser pleaded guilty to one charge and not guilty to the other. No evidence was introduced except written statements by the two defendants, both of whom said that Elser had nothing to do with the robbery of one of the motels, the Sands. The trial court nevertheless found Elser guilty upon both counts and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for fifteen years, with five years suspended on condition of good behavior.\nTwo months later Elser filed his present petition, in which he asserted his complete innocence of both offenses. He attributed his earlier plea of guilty to brutality on the part of the Little Rock police when he was first arrested and to his fear of similar mistreatment by the Hot Springs police if he insisted on his innocence. When the Rnle 1 petition was filed Judge Dobbs appointed Earl Mazander, a member of the Grarland county bar to represent Elser. After a hearing, at which Elser and several police officers testified, the court entered an order finding that Elser had committed perjury and that the relief sought should be denied.\nFor reversal it is argued that in the original arrest and arraignment the appellant\u2019s constitutional rights were violated in several respects. We do not reach those issues, because, unfortunately, it is apparent from the record that Elser did not receive in the court below the impartial hearing to which he was entitled. It is evident that from the outset Judge Dobbs had a preconceived conviction that the assertions in the Rule 1 petition were false. Again and again he intervened in the presentation of the evidence, exhibiting such unmistakable bias and such a prejudiced demeanor as to render his findings of no value to this court. To make our point clear we think it sufficient to quote a few excerpts from the record.\nThe Court: Now you\u2019ve filed a petition in here because your rights have been violated by \u2014 under the Constitution. You\u2019re representing him. I appointed you to represent him?\nMr. Mazander: That\u2019s correct, you honor.\nThe Court: You know I\u2019m getting tired of you guys coming in here to court and I\u2019ve got to appoint somebody to represent you. All right, put on your evidence.\nCircuit Clerk, Mr. Hilliard [to Elser]: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn please, sir?\nThe Court: I don\u2019t think that would do any good but go ahead and swear him.\n* # *\nThe Court: Do you mean to tell me that you still don\u2019t admit that you robbed the Holiday Inn!\nA. I did not rob the Holiday Inn.\nThe Court: You walked in there and knocked a poor old man in the head with a pistol and you don\u2019t admit it?\nA. I did not.\n* * * # *\nThe Court: Just a minute, answer my question. You were identified as the person who used a pistol and beat this poor old man over the head, aren\u2019t you?\nA. We were identified.\nThe Court: Okay ... I know more about this case than you do, just about as much about it.\nThe Court: Just a minute. He\u2019s a thug [referring to Houk, the eodefendant] just like you are, isn\u2019t he? Uh? You want to admit it?\nA. I don\u2019t know as I\u2019m a thug, your honor.\nThe Court: If you wasn\u2019t a thug why did you,go down there and take a pistol and hit an old man over the head?\nA. I denied that.\nThe Court: I know you denied it, but it\u2019s the truth. Just like I am right now, I\u2019m a little bit worked up, too.\nThe Court: Mr. Whittington [the prosecuting attorney], I think he\u2019s admitted everything he wanted to. I want to file a perjury charge against him. But he\u2019s admitted everything\u2014\nMr. Whittington: Sir, we haven\u2019t made a liar out of him yet.\nThe Court: Huh?\nMr. Whittington: Give me about five minutes, sir.\nThe Court: Okay ... I would like to sentence him now for 20 more years. [To this point no one had testified except Elser, who denied his guilt.]\n# * # # *\nThe Court: Let me say this to you, Mr. Mazander. There was no warrant. I issued the warrant the next day.\nMr. Mazander: Your honor, I\u2019m just trying to make a record. We allege in this petition that it was an illegal arrest, and I think I ought to be able to put in evidence that this Lieutenant\u2014\nThe Court: How is there going to be an illegal arrest? You just answer me one question, how is it going to be illegal arrest when two thugs come inhere and beat an old man with a pistol?\n# \u2022 # # *\nMr. Mazander: That\u2019s all the testimony, your honor.\nThe Court: I want him to stand up. At the time I gave you a sentence I gave you fifteen years, five suspended. Now since you came in here and lied like a dog against all the police officers and everybody I\u2019m going \u2014 you know what \u2014 I\u2019m going to put that up five year, \u2019cause you in my opinion, you\u2019ve just lied like nobody\u2019s business. You admit it\u2019s your pistol, don\u2019t you?\nA. I did not admit that was my pistol.\nQ. You admitted you had one, didn\u2019t you?\nA. I had a pistol.\nQ. And you admit robbing the Holiday Inn?\nA. I deny that.\nQ. You do, eh? I tell you what I\u2019m going to do. I\u2019m going to suspend this other five years. I want you to go down for fifteen more years and don\u2019t come back up here before me again. Now that\u2019s all I\u2019ve got to say \u2014 I\u2019m going to suspend \u2014 I gave you ten and I suspended five of it trying to give you a chance. And you\u2019ve come up here and lied before all the officers and everybody else. I want you to go back down there where you belong. The Sheriff will take him back down there and lock him in the cell and deliver him to the penitentiary. I want you to take him to the penitentiary yourself, for somebody\u2014\nMr. Mazander: If it please the court, your honor, I\u2019d like to enter into the record the objection to the changing of the original sentence.\nThe Court: Mr. Mazander, I think you know that I retained your assistance.\nMr. Mazander: That\u2019s correct, your honor, but I want the objection in the record.\nThe Court: Okay, you can object, \u2019cause I\u2019m going to give him another five years down there for coming back up here.\nAs we have indicated, we attach no weight to the trial court\u2019s findings. It is evident that the trial judge should have withdrawn from the case when the petition came on to he heard. A new hearing is accordingly necessary. Even though the testimony has been extensively developed and is before us, in cases at law it is not our province to decide issues of fact when the evidence is in conflict. Boatner v. Gates Bros. Lbr. Co., 224 Ark. 494, 275 S. W. 2d 627, 51 A. L. R. 2d 326 (1955). Of course we do not imply that Riser\u2019s uncorroborated testimony outweighs that of the five police officers who testified for the State, or vice versa. The circuit judge who hears the case on remand (Judge Dobbs having retired) will pass upon contested issues of fact.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Mitchell, for appellant.",
      "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ronnie Lee ELSER v. STATE of Arkansas\n5284\n418 S. W. 2d 389\nOpinion delivered September 18, 1967\nRoy Mitchell, for appellant.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 56,
  "last_page_order": 62
}