Dark v. State
2017 Ark. App. 570
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Robert Thomas Dark was arrested as a passenger in a stolen vehicle; officers found a small baggie on him that field-tested positive for methamphetamine.
- Lab analysis identified the sample as containing methamphetamine and dimethyl sulfone with a total net weight of 0.3541 grams.
- Dark was convicted by a Garland County jury of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced as a habitual offender to 15 years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.
- Dark appealed raising four issues: sufficiency of evidence (usable amount), the trial court’s local rule cutting off plea offers, denial of a continuance/coercion into accepting appointed counsel, and failure to order a fitness-to-proceed examination.
- Trial record: no directed-verdict motion was made at trial; defense sought to change counsel and to represent himself on the morning of trial; Dark referenced long‑standing bipolar diagnosis and requested his medical records be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Dark's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (usable amount) | State failed to prove a usable amount of methamphetamine because no purity test was done on the 0.3541 g sample | Evidence established possession of methamphetamine; Dark failed to preserve a sufficiency challenge by not moving for directed verdict | Not preserved for appellate review; conviction affirmed |
| Trial-court "local rule" cutting off plea offers | Court’s rule barring plea offers after a cutoff date unlawfully prevented plea bargaining and prejudiced Dark | Court still considered plea paperwork and final offer the day of trial; Dark refused the last offer | No reversible error; no prejudice shown |
| Denial of continuance / coercion to accept counsel | Court abused discretion by denying continuance to obtain new counsel and coerced Dark into accepting appointed counsel; denied self-representation | Dark delayed seeking substitute counsel, had no replacement identified, and ultimately elected to accept counsel after discussion | Denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion; Dark waived self-representation; no coercion found |
| Failure to order fitness-to-proceed exam / Ake claim | Dark’s history of bipolar disorder and requests to use medical records required a fitness exam and access to psychiatric assistance under Ake/McWilliams | Record did not give reasonable suspicion that Dark was unfit to proceed; he did not show sanity-at-time-of-offense would be a significant factor | No reasonable suspicion shown; Ake/McWilliams threshold not met; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbison v. State, 302 Ark. 315, 790 S.W.2d 146 (1990) (reversal where quantity was less than a useable amount)
- In re Changes to the Ark. Rules of Civil Procedure, 294 Ark. 664, 742 S.W.2d 551 (1987) (court rule changes regarding plea practice referenced)
- Alexander v. State, 55 Ark. App. 148, 934 S.W.2d 927 (1996) (standards for granting continuance to change counsel)
- Thessing v. State, 365 Ark. 384, 230 S.W.3d 526 (2006) (presumption of competency and burden on defendant to prove incompetency)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) (state must provide access to psychiatric assistance when sanity is a significant factor)
- McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (2017) (clarified minimum assistance required under Ake)