{ "id": 298619, "name": "Don SELLERS v. FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Third Division", "name_abbreviation": "Sellers v. Faulkner County Circuit Court", "decision_date": "1997-10-02", "docket_number": "CR 97-1044", "first_page": "95", "last_page": "97", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "330 Ark. 95" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "950 S.W.2d 805" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "215 Ark. 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1464722 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/215/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 Ark. 542", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902441 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/307/0542-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 Ark. App. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136395 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/25/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 U.S. 564", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12126181 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/430/0564-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 3559, "ocr_confidence": 0.754, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.011903589745965884 }, "sha256": "0c2901845b6924429834a1bfc26dc9666bb5fc1f3b363a93085699b0fc90f51e", "simhash": "1:6275d86c62de49e2", "word_count": 608 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:54.141445+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Don SELLERS v. FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Third Division" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nDon Sellers petitions this court for a writ of prohibition against the Faulkner County Circuit Court, directing the circuit court be prohibited from trying him on a theft by receiving charge. The basis for Sellers\u2019s petition is his claim of double jeopardy.\nThe State filed its criminal theft charge against Sellers on July 28, 1994, but when his case came to trial two years later, the State was unable to produce a material witness. Because the trial court refused the State a continuance, the State requested a dismissal, which the court granted and filed on July 18, 1996. On August 13, 1996, the State filed a motion to reconsider, asking the trial court to reconsider its earlier dismissal order and to reinstate Sellers\u2019s case. The trial court granted the State\u2019s request on November 13, 1996 \u2014 almost four months after its July 18 dismissal order. Sellers then moved for the court to set aside the November 13 order, but the court declined to do so by order filed on February 18, 1997. On May 14, 1997, the trial court again denied Sellers\u2019s second motion to set aside the November 13 order. The trial court has set Sellers\u2019s case for trial, which prompts his request to this court for a writ of prohibition.\nCiting the case of U.S. v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977), and Reaves v. City of Little Rock, 25 Ark. App. 14, 751 S.W.2d 18 (1988), Sellers argues double jeopardy attached when the trial court dismissed his case on July 18, 1996. The State counters, stating among other things, that jeopardy does not attach prior to the swearing of a jury or the taking of evidence in a bench trial. Smith v. State, 307 Ark. 542, 821 S.W.2d 774 (1992); see also McKinney v. State, 215 Ark. 712, 223 S.W.2d 185 (1949).\nBesides the foregoing double-jeopardy argument, Sellers suggests the circuit court had lost jurisdiction under Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civ. 4(c) (1997) (see also Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 2) because the court entered an order beyond the \u201cdeemed denied\u201d date provided in that rule. The State argues Rule 4(c) merely delineates the jurisdictional requirements for filing a notice of appeal and does not apply here. The State also contends Rule 4(c) is inapplicable because the motion for reconsideration the trial court granted on November 13, 1996 was not a post-judgment motion covered by that rule. The trial court adopted the State\u2019s contention.\nAnother question bearing on the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction which is not raised by the State or Sellers is what power, if any, the trial court had to \u201creinstate\u201d the theft charge against Sellers when more than thirty days (almost four months) had passed from when the charge was dismissed (July 18, 1996) and when the case was reinstated on November 13, 1996. Moreover, was the State relegated to refiling its theft charge against Sellers, assuming jeopardy had not yet attached?\nWe request the parties brief the foregoing issues that bear on the lower court\u2019s jurisdiction to proceed against Sellers in the case. Because Sellers is the moving party, he should proceed first in the preparing and filing of his brief. This court\u2019s clerk shall establish the briefing calendar for both parties. A temporary stay shall be entered in the pending trial below until this court renders its opinion in this proceeding.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tim D. Williams, for petitioner.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Don SELLERS v. FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Third Division\nCR 97-1044\n950 S.W.2d 805\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 2, 1997\nTim D. Williams, for petitioner.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0095-01", "first_page_order": 123, "last_page_order": 125 }