Doles v. State
2011 Ark. App. 476
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Doles pleaded guilty to felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 40 years by a Clark County jury.
- Counsel filed an Anders no-merit appeal and Doles filed pro se points challenging juror bias, ineffective assistance, and evidentiary issues.
- The trial court admitted a 911 recording used to identify Doles as the shooter-possessor, over Doles’ objections.
- The Court addressed confrontation-clause, authentication, and relevancy objections related to the 911 recording.
- The court allowed the 911 recording at sentencing under Arkansas law permitting evidence relevant to sentencing.
- Doles’ pro se claims regarding juror bias and ineffective assistance were reviewed and found without merit at the appellate level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the 911 recording under the Confrontation Clause | Doles argues the tape is testimonial and Crowley’s absence violates confrontation | State contends the recording is nontestimonial and properly admitted | Recording properly admitted as nontestimonial under Davis/Seely |
| Authentication of the 911 recording | Unidentified third party on the tape questions authentication | Dispatcher testified recording was authentic and accurate | Authentication satisfied; court did not abuse its discretion admitting the recording |
| Relevance of 911 recording to sentencing | Evidence about pointing a shotgun was irrelevant to the charged offense | Evidence relevant to sentencing under §16-97-103 and opening statement | Evidence admissible for sentencing purposes |
| Juror bias due to probation officer on the jury | Probation officer seated on jury violated impartiality | No evidence of such juror; no objection properly preserved | Claim unsupported by the record; no error shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal | Counsel failed to object to juror seating/other issues | IAC claims not reviewable on direct appeal without trial-curve development | IAC claims not reviewable on direct appeal; no meritorious issue established |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimon ial vs. nontestimonial statements in emergencies)
- Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141 (2008) (test for non-testimonial purpose focused on emergency)
- Walker v. State, 13 Ark.App. 124 (1984) (undercover officer testimony can authenticate tapes)
- Marshall v. State, 342 Ark. 172 (2000) (sentencing evidence admissibility)
- Helms v. State, 92 Ark.App. 79 (2005) (evidence admissible at sentencing; aggravating/mitigating)