French v. State
2017 Ark. App. 136
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Tracy French, incarcerated for rape, filed a pro se “Writ for Sterilization” asking the Hot Spring County Circuit Court to surgically sterilize him and, in exchange, release him after ten years with the remainder of his 30‑year sentence suspended.
- French relied on statutes in the chapter concerning sterilization of mental incompetents and submitted proposed legislative drafts and an affidavit explaining sterilization would prevent recidivism and justify early release.
- The State opposed court involvement in the procedure and opposed any early release; it stated it did not object to sterilization so long as it occurred privately and at no public expense.
- The trial court denied French’s petition on August 18, 2016, and found the filing failed to state a claim, designating it a strike under Ark. Code Ann. § 16‑68‑607.
- French filed a notice of appeal (dated August 9, 2016) but did not file it within thirty days after the trial‑court order; no hearing transcript exists to show when, if at all, the decision was announced.
- The Court of Appeals declined to reach the merits (including whether the trial court had authority to modify a sentence in execution) and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely appeal filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / appellate jurisdiction | French appealed; sought relief despite apparent late filing | State argued against relief and court involvement; implicit that appeal procedure must be followed | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because notice was not shown to be timely and no record of announcement existed |
| Trial court authority to order sterilization / modify sentence | French argued the circuit court could grant castration and reduce/modify his sentence (citing Ark. Code provisions and prior plea practices) | State opposed early release and court involvement in the procedure | Court did not reach merits; noted precedent that once a sentence is in execution, trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify it |
| Applicability of sterilization statutes | French invoked statutes concerning sterilization (chapter for mental incompetents) as authority for relief | State and court noted French did not allege mental incompetence and failed to support legal basis | Court declined to address statutory applicability because jurisdictional defect precluded review |
| Strike designation under Ark. Code § 16‑68‑607 | French did not contest the strike finding on appeal | State defended the strike designation based on failure to state a claim | Court did not review the merits of the strike; dismissal was on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Furrow, 95 Ark. App. 333, 237 S.W.3d 109 (discussing appellate‑jurisdiction duty to assess timeliness)
- Jewell v. Moser, 2012 Ark. (treating untimely notices and timing rules)
- Hernandez v. Hernandez, 371 Ark. 323, 265 S.W.3d 746 (timeliness and appellate procedure)
- Smith v. May, 2013 Ark. 248 (declining to entertain arguments unsupported by authority)
- American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas v. State, 339 Ark. 314, 5 S.W.3d 418 (distinguished; involved castration during plea negotiations)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494, 989 S.W.2d 515 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentence once execution has begun)