{
  "id": 1882716,
  "name": "Michael G. NETTLES v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Nettles v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-07-09",
  "docket_number": "CR 90-53",
  "first_page": "8",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "303 Ark. 8"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "791 S.W.2d 702"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "216 Ark. 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1614268
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/216/0817-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "648 S.W.2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1747008,
        1746978
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0062-01",
        "/ark/279/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ark. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1746978
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 Ark. 24",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717252
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Curtis v. State, 279 Ark. 64, 648 S.W.2d 487 (1983) and Rice v. State, 216 Ark. 817, 228 S.W.2d 43 (1950)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Curtis v. State, 279 Ark. 64, 648 S.W.2d 487 (1983) and Rice v. State, 216 Ark. 817, 228 S.W.2d 43 (1950)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/286/0024-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742370
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891341
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Hall v. State, 281 Ark. 282, 663 S.W.2d 926 (1984)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Hall v. State, 281 Ark. 282, 663 S.W.2d 926 (1984)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0488-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 342,
    "char_count": 5483,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.879,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.233605815818256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38546282041925994
    },
    "sha256": "65434238162cbfefcca8b1bfd0ff525433c40f25733db02bd048431a4f8e4d90",
    "simhash": "1:3d2ae4c5c282fba4",
    "word_count": 950
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:20.399175+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hays, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Michael G. NETTLES v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Michael Nettles, has petitioned this court for a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court of Pike County from proceeding with a trial in regard to a theft of property charge against him. Nettles claims that he has not been afforded his right to a speedy trial. We disagree.\nArkansas R.Cr.P. Rule 28.1(c) addresses the time limitations, excluded periods, and consequences of violations in bringing a criminal defendant to trial and provides in pertinent part as follows:\nAny defendant charged after October 1, 1987, in circuit court and held to bail, or otherwise lawfully set at liberty, . . . shall be entitled to have the charge dismissed with an absolute bar to prosecution if not brought to trial within twelve (12) months from the time provided in Rule 28.2, excluding only such periods of necessary delay as are authorized in Rule 28.3.\nArkansas R.Cr.P. Rule 28.2 addresses when time commences to run in a criminal prosecution and provides in pertinent part as follows:\nThe time for trial shall commence running, without demand by the defendant, from the following dates:\n(a) from the date the charge is filed, except that if prior to that time the defendant has been continuously held in custody or on bail or lawfully at liberty to answer for the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, then the time for trial shall commence running from the date of arrest.\n* * * *\nNettles asserts that more than twelve months have passed from the date that the theft of property was filed, that there are no excusable periods, and that the charge should be dismissed against him due to the prosecutorial bar in Rule 28.1(c).\nWe have examined the record and note the following relevant dates from the trial court\u2019s docket entries:\nDecember 16, 1988 Theft of property charge filed.\nMarch 18, 1989 Nettles arrested.\nMarch 22, 1989 Nettles arraigned.\nJune 14, 1989 Trial court appoints attorney.\nOctober 5, 1989 Nettles enters guilty plea to theft of property charge.\nOctober 23, 1989 Trial court refused to accept sentence recommendation and allows Nettles to withdraw his guilty plea.\nFebruary 7, 1990 Nettles appears in trial court and files a motion to dismiss due to the lack of a speedy trial.\nFebruary 7, 1990 Hearing is conducted and the motion to dismiss is denied.\nAlthough more than twelve months have passed since the theft of property charge against Nettles was filed, the key to this case is that Nettles entered a guilty plea to the charge against him, which plea was subsequently withdrawn. In Kennedy v. State, 297 Ark. 488, 763 S.W.2d 648 (1989) (citing Hall v. State, 281 Ark. 282, 663 S.W.2d 926 (1984)), we stated that \u201c[a] defendant, by a plea of guilty, waives a number of significant rights, including the right to a speedy trial.\u201d We also held in that case that an order allowing the withdrawal of a plea of guilty is analogous to an order granting a new trial, and the time for a trial begins to run anew after an order is entered allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea.\nAs a result, only eight months have run since Nettles\u2019s guilty plea was withdrawn, and Rule 28.1(c) has not been violated.\nWe note that the trial court denied Nettles\u2019s motion to dismiss on the basis of its interpretation of Rules 28.1 and 28.2 to mean \u201cthat a defendant must be arrested before the twelve months time period for speedy trial begins to run.\u201d This interpretation was incorrect, and Nettles\u2019s time for trial began running on the date the charge was filed because he had not been \u201ccontinuously held in custody or on bail or lawfully at liberty to answer for the same offense or on offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode.\u201d\nTo avoid this issue, Nettles argues in his reply brief that the State may not raise new matters of fact or law for the first time on appeal and, since it did not present any evidence at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, is precluded from relying on Kennedy v. State, supra, for affirmance.\nNettles\u2019s claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated is not a new issue of fact or law. Consequently, the State is not raising a new matter by merely responding to Nettles\u2019s argument on appeal. Indeed, under the circumstances, it was not necessary for the State to present any evidence at the hearing on Nettles\u2019s motion to dismiss as he himself had placed into evidence the trial court\u2019s docket sheet, which furnished sufficient facts to determine the issue now under consideration.\nIn Marchant v. State, 286 Ark. 24, 688 S.W.2d 744 (1985) (citing Curtis v. State, 279 Ark. 64, 648 S.W.2d 487 (1983) and Rice v. State, 216 Ark. 817, 228 S.W.2d 43 (1950)), we reiterated that where a trial judge erred in his reasoning, but reached the correct result and his error was harmless, the case will be affirmed on appeal.\nThe trial court\u2019s error in basing its denial of Nettles\u2019s motion to dismiss on an incorrect interpretation of Rules 28.1 and 28.2 was harmless, as, under these circumstances, the twelve month time limitation in which the State has to bring Nettles to trial dates from the order granting the withdrawal of his guilty plea.\nPetition denied.\nHays, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Duncan M. Culpepper, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Kent Jolliff, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael G. NETTLES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 90-53\n791 S.W.2d 702\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 9, 1990\nDuncan M. Culpepper, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Kent Jolliff, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0008-01",
  "first_page_order": 36,
  "last_page_order": 40
}