Hannah v. State
2019 Ark. App. 252
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Nina Hannah was convicted in Osceola District Court of second-degree criminal mischief and three counts of failure to appear; she appealed to Mississippi County Circuit Court.
- Hannah received a circuit-court date in June 2016 but repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled circuit-court trial dates (Sept. 6, 2016; Jan. 22, 2017; May 8, 2017; Nov. 17, 2017), prompting arrest warrants.
- Hannah finally appeared July 31, 2018; the circuit court affirmed the district-court convictions pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(h) (Default Judgment) based on her failure to appear for the Sept. 6 trial date.
- The circuit court entered a nunc pro tunc order affirming the district court and a sentencing order; Hannah timely appealed that affirmance.
- On appeal Hannah argued the circuit court treated Rule 36(h) as mandatory instead of discretionary and failed to consider reasons for her nonappearance or articulate factual findings.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals found Hannah did not preserve those arguments because she failed to raise them in the circuit court, and therefore affirmed without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in affirming district-court convictions under Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(h) | Hannah: Rule 36(h) is discretionary; circuit court acted as if it were mandatory and failed to consider reasons for nonappearance | State/Circuit Court: Affirmance under Rule 36(h) was appropriate given Hannah's repeated failures to appear | Affirmed—argument not considered on merit because Hannah failed to preserve it in circuit court |
| Whether circuit court abused discretion by not articulating factual basis for affirmance | Hannah: Court abused discretion by not stating reasons or allowing evidence about nonappearance | Circuit Court: Affirmance based on statutory rule and Hannah’s failure to appear | Not reached on merits; issue not preserved by proper objection in circuit court |
Key Cases Cited
- McKinney v. State, 538 S.W.3d 216 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (an objection must sufficiently apprise the circuit court of the alleged error to preserve it on appeal)
- Oxford v. State, 567 S.W.3d 83 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (appellant may not change grounds for objection on appeal)
- Eliott v. State, 27 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2000) (parties are bound on appeal by scope and nature of objections at trial)
- Brown v. State, 931 S.W.2d 80 (Ark. 1996) (same principle: appellate review limited by objections made below)
- Johnson v. State, 344 S.W.3d 74 (Ark. 2009) (issues raised first on appeal, even constitutional ones, will not be considered if not presented to trial court)