{
  "id": 1709320,
  "name": "James C. WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wright v. State",
  "decision_date": "1980-09-02",
  "docket_number": "CR 80-90",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 78"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "603 S.W.2d 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 461",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616815
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0461-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "407 U.S. 514",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9139028
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/407/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668709
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 Ark. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1715515
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/268/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712510
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718190
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719802
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 422,
    "char_count": 6792,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1625536277511474e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5844165045915805
    },
    "sha256": "5c8306487af1d975c4a8a4f604fb449ac43699e79b4e5f92b957d051c793c46f",
    "simhash": "1:ceeef13fed2a8b16",
    "word_count": 1139
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James C. WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted by a jury of first degree escape in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2810 (Repl. 1977) and, as a habitual criminal, received a sentence of fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment. Nine months previously, he was convicted of aggravated robbery. We affirmed. Wright v. State, 267 Ark. 264, 590 S.W. 2d 15 (1979).\nAppellant first asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for commitment to the state hospital for a mental examination based on his insanity plea. He cites Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-605 (Repl. 1977) as being mandatory that he be examined there. He overlooks, however, that portion of the statute which provides an alternative; i.e., the court is empowered to direct that the defendant be examined by a psychiatrist at a local regional mental health center or the court may appoint at least one qualified psychiatrist to make an examination and report on the defendant\u2019s mental condition. Appellant, at his request shortly after the alleged offense, was examined by a psychiatrist from a local mental health center pursuant to the court\u2019s order. Thus, it clearly appears there was compliance with the statutory requirement as to a mental examination. Further, the record shows that 4 days prior to the trial, the court authorized, as requested by appellant, that he be seen again by the same psychiatrist. Although the court specifically stated that if appellant encountered any problems, he was to advise the court, it appears that appellant did not avail himself of the additional authorized examination.\nEven so, appellant argues that no report was submitted as a result of his examination and, therefore, there was noncompliance with the statute. According to the examining psychiatrist, the report had been misplaced. The issue of a nonexistent report appears to be raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, we do not consider it. Houston v. State, 266 Ark. 257, 582 S.W. 2d 958 (1979); see also Bell v. State, 269 Ark. 85, 598 S.W. 2d 738 (1980).\nNeither can we agree with appellant\u2019s argument that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Appellant asserts that since he was not tried within 9 months, citing Rule 28.1(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, he is entitled to an absolute discharge. We have recently held that the accused who is committed to prison on another offense, as here, has the \u201cright to be brought to trial before the end of the third full term of court from the time provided in Rule 28.2, excluding such periods of necessary delay as are authorized in Rule 28.3. See Rule 28.1 (b).\u201d Matthews v. State, 268 Ark. 484, 598 S.W. 2d 58 (1980); Wade v. State, 264 Ark. 320, 571 S.W. 2d 231 (1978). The terms of the Boone County Circuit Court begin on the third Monday in March and the third Monday in September. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-310 (Repl. 1962). The term in which a defendant is charged is not counted in computing the terms. The expiration of full terms is required. Matthews v. State, supra. and Wade v. State, supra. The first full term after appellant\u2019s arrest on November 10 was the term commencing in March, 1979, and the second was that commencing in September, 1979- Therefore appellant\u2019s trial, being in October, 1979, was well within the statutory limit.\nEven so, we still consider whether appellant\u2019s trial meets the constitutional requirements for a speedy trial as enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972). In Curan v. State, 260 Ark. 461, 541 S.W. 2d 923 (1976), we recognized the Wingo factors to be considered: the length of delay, the reason for delay, the defendant\u2019s assertion of his right and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay. Approximately 11 months had elapsed from the date of appellant\u2019s arrest on the escape charge and 9 months from the date of appellant\u2019s trial and conviction on the robbery charge. We do not consider the delay as being unreasonable considering the numerous pretrial motions made by the defendant, the fact he was tried in the interim on the robbery charge, and appellant\u2019s nonassertion of his right to a speedy trial until apprximately a week before his trial. A delay in bringing appellant to trial is not per se prejudicial to him. Barker v. Wingo, supra. No prejudice has been shown, and we hold the appellant was not denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial.\nAppellant next contends that the trial court failed to conduct a hearing on his competency, as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-605 and 41-606 (Repl. 1977). The court did hold a hearing 3 days before trial to determine appellant\u2019s competency to stand trial and assist his counsel. The court inquired as to what evidence appellant wanted to present at the hearing as to his competency. Defense counsel\u2019s first statement to the court, after reminding the court of the outstanding motion, was that appellant \u201cdoes have a psychiatric history and I would like to put some evidence on \u2014 Mr. Wright\u2019s [appellant\u2019s] testimony \u2014 as to that and ask for a ruling by the Court.\u201d Appellant testified. It appears appellant made no request for the local psychiatrist, who had previously examined him, to testify at the competency hearing; nor was there any objection to the absence of that psychiatrist\u2019s report based on his previous examination. After the hearing, the court ruled the appellant was competent to stand trial, observing that the court had had two hearings which, to some extent, developed the evidence regarding appellant\u2019s competency. The court also said that it had observed the defendant and referred to the transcript bearing on appellant\u2019s competency at his robbery trial, at which the court had presided, 9 months previously. It appears there was no objection. In the circumstances, appellant has not demonstrated any prejudicial error in the conduct of the competency hearing here.\nNeither do we agree that the court erred in refusing appellant\u2019s motion to compel attendance of numerous witnesses to support his defense of insanity and in denying appellant\u2019s motion for a deposition and other written materials. This argument was presented and rejected in Wright v. State, supra, on many of the items asserted here. Again, we find no abuse of discretion by the court\u2019s ruling.\nWe have considered appellant\u2019s motion to file a pro se brief to supplement the brief and reply brief filed by his attorney. This motion is denied inasmuch as it was not timely filed. Further, we find no merit in his contentions.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Alvin Schay, State Appellate Defender, by: Jack Kearney, Deputy Appellate Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: James F. Dowden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James C. WRIGHT v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 80-90\n603 S.W. 2d 408\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 2, 1980\nE. Alvin Schay, State Appellate Defender, by: Jack Kearney, Deputy Appellate Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: James F. Dowden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 108
}