{ "id": 1878569, "name": "Norman RAWLINGS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Rawlings v. State", "decision_date": "1985-01-28", "docket_number": "CR 84-152", "first_page": "446", "last_page": "449", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "284 Ark. 446" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "683 S.W.2d 223" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "545 S.W.2d 606", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1616825, 1616690, 1678846 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0857-01", "/ark/260/0785-01", "/ark/261/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ark. 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616825 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 Ark. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1709326 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/270/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 Ark. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1880005 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/283/0304-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 Ark. 425", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1879959 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing, December 21, 1984" }, { "parenthetical": "supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing, December 21, 1984" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/283/0425-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 21", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878690 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0021-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878678 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878638 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 Ark. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1878686 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/284/0396-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 341, "char_count": 4486, "ocr_confidence": 0.817, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.036957840967046e-07, "percentile": 0.5496708495360154 }, "sha256": "8a9a8d151191df4ccb5744de9c8b0c702c1def3ac40f3c86c1f4da060a935642", "simhash": "1:a19ba8456f1866ab", "word_count": 749 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:32.164820+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Norman RAWLINGS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThis is another in a series of DWI appeals testing provisions of Act 549 of 1983.\nThe appellant was convicted in municipal court of his third offense of driving while intoxicated. He appealed the conviction to circuit court where a jury found him guilty of DWI, third offense. The appellant was sentenced to five months in the county jail; ordered to pay a $1,000.00 fine; and his driver\u2019s license was suspended indefinitely. This appeal from that order is before us under Sup. Ct. R. 29( 1 )(c).\nThe appellant raises two points on appeal. His first contention is that Act 549 is void for vagueness and therefore unconstitutional. The appellant maintains that the act does not furnish a sufficiently ascertainable standard of guilt and is therefore violative of due process, and that a constitutionally forbidden irrebuttable presumption is created.\nThese same constitutional questions have been raised in other cases challenging Act 549 and we have upheld the constitutionality of the act. See Sparrow v. State, 284 Ark. 396, 683 S.W.2d 218 (1985); Steele v. State, 284 Ark. 340, 681 S.W.2d 354 (1984); Spicer v. City of Fayetteville, 284 Ark. 315, 681 S.W.2d 369 (1984); Long v. State, 284 Ark. 21, 680 S. W.2d 686 (1984); and Lovell v. State, 283 Ark. 425, 678 S.W.2d 318 (1984) (supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing, December 21, 1984).\nFor his second assignment of error, the appellant states the judgment entered by the circuit court was erroneous in two respects.\nFirst, he contends it was contrary to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-2506 (Supp. 1983) which provides:\nUpon finding of guilt or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for violating Section 3 [\u00a7 75-2503] of the Act, the Court shall immediately request and the Highway Safety Program or its designee shall provide a presentence screening and assessment report of the defendant. The presentence report shall be provided within thirty (30) days of the request, and the court shall not pronounce sentence until receipt of the presentence report. The report shall include but not be limited to the offender\u2019s driving record, alcohol related criminal record, an alcohol problem assessment, and a victim impact statement where applicable.\nThe jury was instructed to ascertain punishment at the same time they determined guilt and there is no indication in the record that a presentence report was furnished to the court prior to pronouncement of sentence. Although the statute is cast in mandatory terms, the record reflects that no objection was made at the time of sentencing to the lack of a presentence report. We do not consider questions raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Brown, 283 Ark. 304, 675 S.W.2d 822(1984).\nSecond, the appellant contends the judgment was erroneous as to the court\u2019s indefinite suspension of his driver\u2019s license.\nArkansas Stat. Ann. \u00a7 75-2511 (Supp. 1983) provides that upon conviction of DWI, the court shall transmit the operator\u2019s license to the Office of Driver Services and instruct them to suspend the license:\nfor at least two [2] years for the third offense within three [3] years of the first offense; and revocation for the fourth or subsequent offense occurring within a three [3] year period of the first offense. Revocation shall continue until and unless a three [3] year period has transpired during which the person has not been cited for any moving traffic offense or violation.\nThe appellant maintains that the statute does not provide for an \u201cindefinite suspension\u201d as ordered by the judge. We agree, and since the statute orders a two year suspension for a third offense of DWI we modify the trial court\u2019s judgment to a two year suspension rather than an indefinite suspension of appellant\u2019s driver\u2019s license. See Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-2144 (Repl. 1979); Ellis v. State, 270 Ark. 243, 603 S.W.2d 891 (1980).\nThe argument is also made by the appellant that \u00a7 75-2511 is vague in that it does not provide for a maximum penalty. We do not consider this issue on appeal however, because of the appellant\u2019s failure to make convincing argument or cite any authority for the proposition. Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977).\nAffirmed as Modified.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Highsmith, Gregg, Hart, Farris ir Rutledge, by: Keith Rutledge, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: A lice Ann Burns, Dep. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Norman RAWLINGS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-152\n683 S.W.2d 223\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 28, 1985\nHighsmith, Gregg, Hart, Farris ir Rutledge, by: Keith Rutledge, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: A lice Ann Burns, Dep. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0446-01", "first_page_order": 476, "last_page_order": 479 }