588 S.W.3d 790
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Davis (passenger in a stopped vehicle on Mar. 7, 2017) was arrested on outstanding warrants; a search at the police station produced four plastic baggies in her bra containing a crystal-white substance and pills.
- Arkansas State Crime Lab tested the substance as methamphetamine weighing 1.0088 grams.
- Davis was charged (May 19, 2017) with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; jury trial occurred May 23, 2018.
- On the morning of trial Davis requested a continuance to obtain private counsel; the court denied the continuance.
- At sentencing the court sustained hearsay objections to Davis’s testimony about a promised Drug Task Force (DTF) deal and statements by a third party. The jury convicted and sentenced her to 15 years in the DOC.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, granted counsel’s Anders no‑merit motion to withdraw, and remanded to correct a clerical error in the sentencing order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of continuance to hire private counsel | Davis: needed time to retain private attorney on trial day | State/Ct: Davis could not show retained counsel; case pending a year; no attorney appeared | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for intent-to-deliver conviction | Davis: conviction not supported | State: physical control, baggies in bra, chain of custody, lab result (1.0088 g) support conviction | Evidence substantial; conviction affirmed |
| Exclusion of hearsay at sentencing (DTF deal; Watkins statements) | Davis: testimony about DTF promise and third-party statements relevant to sentencing | State: statements were out-of-court and offered for truth—hearsay | Court properly sustained hearsay objections; no reversible error |
| Claims about DTF failing to honor a deal | Davis: DTF promised charges would be dropped | State: issue not preserved—no trial objection or motion to dismiss | Issue not preserved; rejected |
| Jury question about DOC drug programs | Davis: jury should have been told about programs | State/Ct: court answered to rely on evidence/instructions; counsel agreed | No objection at trial; response proper; waived on appeal |
| Clerical error in sentencing order | N/A | N/A | Court must correct clerical error (remand for nunc pro tunc correction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (no‑merit/appointed counsel withdrawal framework)
- Ashe v. State, 57 Ark. App. 99 (Ark. App. 1997) (standard for appellate review of evidence)
- Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119 (Ark. 1980) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Pickens-Bond Constr. Co. v. Case, 266 Ark. 323 (Ark. 1979) (describing substantial-evidence requirement)
- Hewitt v. State, 317 Ark. 362 (Ark. 1994) (preservation rule for appellate review; need for specific trial objection)
- Ratchford v. State, 357 Ark. 27 (Ark. 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims not addressed on direct appeal absent circuit-court ruling)
- Sizemore v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 728 (Ark. App. 2015) (circuit court may enter nunc pro tunc order to correct clerical errors)