{
  "id": 1447548,
  "name": "Kelly Sean O'NEILL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "O'Neill v. State",
  "decision_date": "1995-11-06",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-442",
  "first_page": "299",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 Ark. 299"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "908 S.W.2d 637"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-301",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 3,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 Ark. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1449582
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "648"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/321/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-205",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(e)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3060,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.819,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05439487012563281
    },
    "sha256": "66edc36b2d482e44d2d60a07d12e3266f09949dc0aaf61e4988d77762b674f26",
    "simhash": "1:8ac3049cfe298b3d",
    "word_count": 506
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:17:32.217899+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Kelly Sean O\u2019NEILL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Kelly Sean O\u2019Neill, was convicted in municipal court of a violation of the implied consent law, codified at Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-205 (Repl. 1993). O\u2019Neill appealed his case to circuit court, and in a bench trial, the circuit judge affirmed his conviction and suspended his driver\u2019s license for six months. His sole point of error on appeal is that the circuit court erred in not declaring the implied consent statute unconstitutional. We affirm.\nThe case was tried on a stipulation of facts. O\u2019Neill conceded that officers had reasonable cause to request that he submit to a chemical test. Rather, he asserted at trial below as he does now on appeal that the implied consent statute has three different penalty provisions depending on the state of residence of the offender and the status of his driver\u2019s license, and that these provisions are violative of the due process clause of Ark. Const, art. 2, \u00a7 8, and the equal protection clause of Ark. Const, art. 2, \u00a7 3 and \u00a7 18. O\u2019Neill also complains that the statute allows for enhanced penalties for an Arkansas resident who has a valid driver\u2019s license and prior violations, while there are no enhanced penalties for subsequent offenses committed by a resident without a license or a nonresident. Finally, O\u2019Neill asserts that the statute is unconstitutional because it provides that a nonresident\u2019s driving privileges may be suspended indefinitely. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-65-205(e)(l) (Repl. 1993).\nWe recently disposed of these very arguments in Cook v. State, 321 Ark. 641, 906 S.W.2d 681 (1995). In examining the implied consent statute under a rational basis standard, we observed that, while the legislature has created varying penalties for violation of the statute\u2019s mandates, possession of an Arkansas driver\u2019s license carries with it the implied obligation to abide by state driving laws. Id. at 648. We further recognized that both Arkansas residents who drive without a valid driver\u2019s license and nonresidents who drive while their license or driving privilege is under suspension are subject to additional punishment. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 27-16-301 and \u00a7 27-16-303 (Repl. 1994). Taking these factors into consideration, we concluded that the varying punishments of the implied consent statute were not devoid of a legitimate purpose. Id. at 649.\nLike the appellant in Cook, O\u2019Neill has no standing to challenge the validity of \u00a7 5-65-205(e)(l), which provides that a nonresident\u2019s driving privileges may be suspended indefinitely. O\u2019Neill, who was an Arkansas resident at the time of the offense, has not suffered injury as a result of this provision, nor does he belong to a class which is prejudiced by the law. Id.\nFor the reasons set out in the Cook case, we affirm the decision of the circuit court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Doug Norwood, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kelly Sean O\u2019NEILL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-442\n908 S.W.2d 637\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 6, 1995\nDoug Norwood, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0299-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 326
}