Charles Alan Rickman v. State of Arkansas, 597 S.W.3d 622

Background:

Victim Susan Hazard (69) was violently raped, beaten, bound, and left blindfolded and bleeding in her rural home on Oct. 2–3, 2017; she suffered catastrophic injuries and later required amputations.
Appellant Charles Alan Rickman had worked for the victim; officers arrested him Oct. 3 on an unrelated warrant and Mirandized him; he invoked his right to counsel and the interview was terminated after ~5 minutes.
On Oct. 5 jail staff relayed that Rickman requested to speak with detectives; officers Mirandized him again, he signed a waiver, and gave a custodial confession with details of the crimes.
Rickman moved to suppress the Oct. 5 statement, arguing he had invoked counsel and did not reinitiate contact; the trial court denied the motion.
Rickman also proffered jury instructions reducing kidnapping to Class B (voluntary release in a safe place) and allowing a nonbinding jury recommendation on concurrent/consecutive sentences; the court refused both.
On the morning of trial Rickman attempted to plead guilty and be sentenced by a jury over the prosecutor’s objection; the court refused. A jury convicted him on all counts, and he received consecutive life terms and additional penalties. He appealed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to suppress: Was Oct. 5 confession admissible after invocation of counsel?	Rickman: He invoked counsel Oct. 3 and did not validly reinitiate; Oct. 5 statement should be suppressed.	State: Rickman initiated further contact Oct. 5 (requested CID), waived rights again, so confession was admissible.	Court: Affirmed—Rickman initiated contact Oct. 5; totality shows valid waiver.
Jury instruction (kidnapping reduced to Class B): Should jury be instructed on voluntary release/safe place?	Rickman: Evidence supported at least a rational basis for Class B instruction (victim was left alive in her home).	State: Victim was left bound, blindfolded, threatened, debilitated in rural home — not a safe release; instruction properly refused.	Court: Affirmed—no abuse of discretion in denying Class B instruction.
Jury instruction (concurrent vs. consecutive): Should jury be allowed to recommend sentencing order?	Rickman: Jury should be allowed to make a nonbinding recommendation on concurrency.	State: Sentencing order (concurrent vs. consecutive) is for the judge; jury recommendation unnecessary.	Court: Affirmed—decision on concurrency lies solely with the trial court.
Guilty plea over prosecutor objection: May defendant plead guilty and be sentenced by jury despite objection?	Rickman: Rule 31.1 permits pleading guilty and jury sentencing even over prosecutor's objection.	State: Prosecutor must assent to a jury-waived plea; Rule 31.1 requires state assent and court approval.	Court: Affirmed—defendant cannot waive a jury trial over the State's objection; plea refused.

Key Cases Cited

Airsman v. State, 451 S.W.3d 565 (rule that after invocation of counsel further interrogation is permitted only if accused initiates communication)
Stevenson v. State, 426 S.W.3d 416 (example where defendant reinitiated contact after being told how to request police contact)
Davis v. State, 246 S.W.3d 862 (analysis of "safe place" and when release does not reduce kidnapping class)
Ratliff v. State, 199 S.W.3d 79 (familiarity with place is a factor but not determinative of safety)
Huff v. State, 423 S.W.3d 608 (place familiarity alone does not make a release safe)
Whitt v. State, 664 S.W.2d 876 (release in trunk not a safe place)
Grubbs v. State, 592 S.W.3d 688 (model jury instructions required when lawfully applicable)
Brown v. State, 875 S.W.2d 828 (sentencing concurrency vs. consecutiveness is judicial discretion)
State v. Smittie, 20 S.W.3d 352 (defendant cannot waive jury trial over prosecutor's objection)