{
  "id": 3689858,
  "name": "STATE of Arkansas v. Eugene JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "2008-06-26",
  "docket_number": "CR 08-88",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "103",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "374 Ark. 100"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "286 S.W.3d 129"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "279 S.W.3d 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 Ark. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3509236
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/372/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 Ark. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5368503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/356/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 Ark. 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        2649839
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/355/0652-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "373 Ark. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3665937
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2008,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/373/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 Ark. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3712495
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/359/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 Ark. 346",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        4017260
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/369/0346-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 6935,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.787,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.66471399616901e-07,
      "percentile": 0.694990132629354
    },
    "sha256": "19bee8f83bda3ad5c968d371deee9045196eb81df1a4eeae0604d4e8926f91ca",
    "simhash": "1:2a2fc10e47616370",
    "word_count": 1175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:09.980592+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of Arkansas v. Eugene JOHNSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThe State appeals a circuit court order granting Eugene Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial under Ark. R. Crim. P. 28. Johnson was arrested in Union County on May 16, 2006, and charged with rape and knowingly exposing another person to HIV. On August 20, 2007, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, asserting that the State violated his right to a speedy trial because he had not been tried within twelve months from the date of his arrest. According to Johnson, 461 days had elapsed since his arrest; subtracting the period that the trial court excluded for the time Johnson\u2019s attorney served in the General Assembly \u2014 February 22, 2007 until May 25, 2007 \u2014 Johnson contended that the speedy trial limitation expired on August 17, 2007, and that there was no good cause for the delay.\nThe State filed a response to Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss, arguing that a motion for a mental evaluation Johnson filed on April 13, 2007, tolled the accrual of time for speedy trial purposes. Specifically, the State asserted that the tolled period ran from the date Johnson filed the motion because the trial court had not ruled on the motion nor did the docket reflect that it had been withdrawn.\nThe trial court entered an order on August 30, 2007, granting Johnson\u2019s motion to dismiss. The State filed a motion for reconsideration, repeating its argument that the period dating from Johnson\u2019s filed motion for a mental examination (April 13, 2007) through the date set for trial (August 20, 2007) should be excluded for calculation under the speedy trial rule. The State did not dispute Johnson\u2019s assertion that he withdrew his motion during a court appearance on May 25, 2007. Instead, the State contended that, without a docket entry memorializing that Johnson withdrew his motion for a mental evaluation, \u201cthe State should be entitled to rely on the docket sheet in the fashion and with the same rights and protections as a defendant, for calculating time under the speedy trial rule.\u201d\nAdditionally, the State argued in its motion for reconsideration that it should be entitled to an excluded period dating from May 25, 2007 through June 22, 2007, because \u201cthe State was awaiting the return of medical records pertaining to HIV.\u201d According to the State, the period should be excluded under the \u201cother good cause\u201d tolling provision of Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3(h) because \u201c[t]he State was not able to secure these records without resorting to the issuance of a prosecutor\u2019s subpoena compelling the appearance of health department official before the Court.\u201d\nJohnson filed a response to the State\u2019s motion for reconsideration, contending that a court is not required to issue a written order or docket entry determining excluded periods until a defendant enforces his right to a speedy trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 28.3. Turning to the State\u2019s argument that it was entitled to a \u201cgood cause\u201d exclusion for the period it was waiting for Johnson\u2019s medical records, Johnson contended that the State did not exercise due diligence in trying to obtain the records, as evidenced by the fact that the criminal information was filed by the State on May 17, 2006, and the State did not issue a subpoena for the records until July 9, 2007. Accordingly, Johnson argued, the State was not entitled to a good cause exclusion.\nThe trial court filed a letter order on October 25, 2007, denying the State\u2019s motion for reconsideration. The order stated that the court \u201ccannot breathe new life into a proposed excluded period,\u201d and that \u201c[t]hese cases are prime examples of what can happen when a case falls between the cracks.\u201d\nAs a threshold matter, the court must determine whether the State may appeal the trial court\u2019s ruling. Unlike the right of a criminal defendant to bring an appeal, the State\u2019s right to appeal is limited to the provisions of Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 3. See, e.g., State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007). Under Rule 3, the State\u2019s appeal must require this court\u2019s review for \u201cthe correct and uniform administration of the criminal law.\u201d Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Crim. 3(c); State v. Markham, 359 Ark. 126, 194 S.W.3d 765 (2004). The correct and uniform administration of justice is only at issue when the question presented is solely a question of law independent of the facts in the case appealed. See, e.g., State v. S.G., 373 Ark. 364, 284 S.W.3d 62 (2008). Where the appeal relies on facts unique to the case, the appeal will not lie. Id. The court will only review appeals taken by the State which are narrow in scope and involve the interpretation of law, and which present an issue of interpretation of the criminal rules or statutes with widespread ramifications. See, e.g., State v. Fuson, 355 Ark. 652, 144 S.W.3d 250 (2004). We do not allow appeals by the State merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred; the appeal must require a holding that will establish precedent important to the correct and uniform administration of justice. Id.\nThe State argues that it was entitled to have time excluded \u201cfor other good cause\u201d when it was trying to obtain Johnson\u2019s medical records. Determination of whether the State was entitled to such an exclusion is a factual determination, which the trial court made, and the record clearly supports that determination. The circuit court repeatedly emphasized in several successive hearings the need for the State to obtain Johnson\u2019s records from the Health Department because of speedy trial considerations, and directed the State to subpoena the records if necessary. This appeal does not solely concern a matter of law; it involves unique facts and circumstances and an interpretation of our rules with widespread ramifications is simply not at issue. See, e.g., S. G., supra.\nDismissed.\nThe State later filed an amended information to include a second charge of knowingly exposing another person to HIV\nThe State does not raise this issue on appeal. Issues raised below but not argued on appeal are considered abandoned. Jordan v. State, 356 Ark. 248, 147 S.W.3d 691 (2004).\nThe State additionally argues that the trial court erred in calculating an excluded period for the time Johnson\u2019s attorney was serving in the General Assembly under Ark Code Ann.\u00a7 16-63-406(a)(l) (Repl.2005). However, the State never raised the issue below, and we will not consider it for the first time on appeal. This court has repeatedly said that an appellant must raise an issue and make an argument to the circuit court for it to be preserved for appeal, even if the issue is constitutional in nature. See, e.g., Strong v. State, 372 Ark. 404, 279 S.W.3d 159 (2008).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.",
      "Robert N. Jeffrey, Deputy Public Defender, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE of Arkansas v. Eugene JOHNSON\nCR 08-88\n286 S.W.3d 129\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 26, 2008\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellant.\nRobert N. Jeffrey, Deputy Public Defender, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-01",
  "first_page_order": 124,
  "last_page_order": 127
}