{
  "id": 922837,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pulaski County Circuit Court",
  "decision_date": "1997-02-10",
  "docket_number": "96-1286",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "327 Ark. 287"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "938 S.W.2d 815"
    }
  ],
  "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 16-84-113",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 563",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907844
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0563-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 886",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12025346
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "889"
        },
        {
          "page": "916"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0886-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 459,
    "char_count": 8585,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.774,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.369130595172464e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5144433131043548
    },
    "sha256": "9d52e218bbc9468795c4844197a58c63c3958f587390d497af4b98e6a3c9a8bb",
    "simhash": "1:0a7796333e9b8016",
    "word_count": 1428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:50:41.435320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, Brown, and Thornton, JJ., would deny.",
      "Corbin and Thornton, JJ., join."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe State seeks rehearing, stating that it agrees with this court that the circuit court could exercise superintending control over the municipal court\u2019s setting bail in this cause. However, it suggests that this court did not properly address whether the circuit court possessed such authority, absent any filing having been made to initiate the circuit court\u2019s jurisdiction to reduce the bail, established earlier by the municipal court. In reviewing the limited record given to us in this case, it is readily apparent that the State had never been served with any petition or motion notifying it that a bond hearing would be held in this matter in circuit court. For this reason, the deputy prosecutor objected to the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction and its proceeding below, as is shown by the following colloquy:\nState: Your Honor, is this a bond hearing?\nCourt: Yes. Yes.\nState: At this point, I\u2019d have to respectfully object to the court considering bond on the basis of jurisdiction. It\u2019s my understanding that there\u2019s not been anything filed in this court. He\u2019s been before a judge previously and had an opportunity with a lawyer to address his bond. It\u2019s currently set at twenty-five thousand dollars. Now, if this was filed in this court, I \u2014\nCourt: Well, the only reason the court\u2019s taking an interest in this is because of the age of this young man, sixteen years old, sitting up in the jail while the file is on somebody\u2019s desk.\nState: I understand the court\u2019s concern, Your Honor. But I don\u2019t think it is properly before this court at this time.\nCourt: Well, a circuit judge can set a bond on it, as you know . . . because right now it\u2019s simply in limbo. (Emphasis added.)\nAs is reflected in the foregoing colloquy, the State never questioned whether the circuit court had superintending authority over the municipal court, but instead argued the bond issue was not properly before the circuit court since nothing had been filed with the court. Nonetheless, the respondent\u2019s argument dealt only with whether the circuit court had authority to decrease the amount of bond once the bond had been set by the municipal court.\nIn our opinion handed down on December 16, 1996, we thoroughly agreed with respondent\u2019s counsel, and held the circuit judge had superintending power over a municipal court\u2019s bail bond decisions. We failed, however, to answer the issue concerning whether the circuit court could exercise such authority without first filing a motion, petition, or other pleading. We do so now, and conclude that, if a defendant seeks relief from a bond established by an inferior court, the defendant must first commence his or her action by fifing a pleading with the clerk of the superintending court. See Rules 3 and 4 of the Arkansas Rifles of Civil Procedure. To decide otherwise would foster ex parte communications with judges and encourage forum shopping.\nIn conclusion, we reaffirm our decision herein that a circuit court has superintending power over a municipal court\u2019s setting of bail bonds, but in addition, we must hold the circuit court erred by failing to require the defendant to commence his bond-reduction request by fifing an appropriate pleading with the court\u2019s clerk. Accordingly, we grant the State\u2019s petition for writ of prohibition because the bond-reduction issue herein was not properly filed with the circuit court. Nevertheless, the parties are left with the direction that the circuit court below does have superintending power to proceed in this matter upon the parties\u2019 correctly initiating that court\u2019s jurisdiction by filing an appropriate pleading.\nCorbin, Brown, and Thornton, JJ., would deny.\nRobert L. Brown, Justice.\nThis case grew out of the arrest of David Barnard Batts, age 16, for the unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle. On July 17, 1996, Sherwood Municipal Court fixed bond at $25,000 and bound Batts\u2019s case over to Pulaski County Circuit Court. The case languished in this \u201cbound over\u201d status for two months. No criminal charges were filed by the prosecuting \u00e1ttorney in circuit court, and Batts remained in the county jail.\nOn September 16, 1996, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey was contacted by Batts\u2019s parents who complained their son should be in school and not in jail. Judge Humphrey notified the prosecuting attorney\u2019s office that he would hold a hearing on the status of the case for the following day. In our initial opinion, we stated what occurred at that hearing:\nThe deputy prosecutor then objected to the bond hearing because charges had not been filed in circuit court. The court admonished the prosecutor to \u201cmove these [cases] along,\u201d and the court reduced the bail to $7,500.\nState v. Pulaski County Circuit Court, 326 Ark. 886, 889, 934 S.W.2d 915, 916 (1996). In our initial opinion, we denied the State\u2019s petition for prohibition and certiorari on the basis that the circuit court had superintending control over municipal courts and could reduce the amount of bail, even though criminal charges had yet to be filed.\nThe State now has petitioned for rehearing and contests our initial decision for the reason that a circuit court\u2019s superintending control over municipal courts does not arise until charges are filed in circuit court. The State\u2019s essential theory is that the case of Whitehead v. State, 316 Ark. 563, 873 S.W.2d 800 (1994), thwarts the circuit court\u2019s authority to reduce bail in this case, and that case was not sufficiently distinguished in our initial opinion.\nThe per curiam opinion handed down today grants the State\u2019s petition for rehearing and further grants the writ of prohibition, which has the effect of precluding the Pulaski County Circuit Court from acting in this case until a petition to reduce bail is filed. Today\u2019s per curiam opinion, however, appears to agree with the initial opinion of this court that the circuit court had superintending authority to reduce bail, even though criminal charges had not been filed. What renders the circuit court wholly without jurisdiction, according to the new opinion, is the failure of Batts or his guardian to file a written petition to reduce the bail. The express menace sought to be corrected is forum-shopping and ex parte communications with circuit judges.\nBecause the opinion today grants rehearing on a point mentioned only in passing in the State\u2019s petition for rehearing \u2014 failure of Batts to file a petition to reduce bail \u2014 I am fearful that Pulaski County Circuit Court has not had adequate opportunity to address this point. The State\u2019s cornerstone argument has always been that it is the failure to file charges that renders the circuit court unable to act. Moreover, I do not read the position of the State to be that the mere filing of a petition to reduce bail, without the fifing of criminal charges, confers jurisdiction in the circuit court.\nFinally, on the merits, the precise statute on bail applications does appear to permit oral applications in circuit court when the circuit court is not convened:\n(a) If the defendant is committed to jail, and the application for bail is made to a magistrate, or judge of the circuit court during vacation, it must be by written petition, signed by the defendant or his counsel, briefly stating the offense for which he is committed and naming the persons offered as surety.\n(b) In all other cases, the application may be made orally to the court or magistrate.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-84-113 (Supp. 1995).\nAgain, the core issue in this case was whether the circuit court obtained jurisdiction to reduce bail when criminal charges had not been filed. We held that the circuit court had the power to do so in this case. Should forum-shopping become an issue in a later case, we can address it. I would deny rehearing.\nCorbin and Thornton, JJ., join.\nWe in no way mean to limit other remedies, if appropriate, such as filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. In any event, the defendant must first file the petition with the clerk of the proper court. Because this case involved only a bond-reduction issue, defendant was required first to file his motion or petition with the circuit clerk\u2019s office, which then would have assigned the matter to the proper circuit court division.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam. Robert L. Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.",
      "James, Yeatman & Carter, PLC, by: Paul J. James and Steve W. Haralson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT\n96-1286\n938 S.W.2d 815\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 10, 1997\n[Petition for rehearing denied March 17, 1997.]\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nJames, Yeatman & Carter, PLC, by: Paul J. James and Steve W. Haralson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 315,
  "last_page_order": 320
}