Lane v. State
2015 Ark. App. 672
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Adam Lane pled guilty (Oct 2013) to being a felon in possession of a firearm; received six years’ incarceration followed by four years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS).
- Lane was released on parole (Dec 2014); he failed to report in Jan 2015 and was arrested on Jan 27, 2015, on new drug- and firearm-related charges.
- The State filed a petition to revoke Lane’s SIS (Feb 3, 2015); the bench warrant shows service on Feb 4, 2015.
- Revocation hearing occurred Apr 8, 2015 (63 days after arrest); the court found violations based on possession of drugs and a firearm and entered a sentencing order Apr 14, 2015.
- On appeal Lane argued: (1) the court failed to provide the written statement of evidence/reasons required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-307(b)(5); and (2) the revocation hearing was not held within the sixty-day period required by § 16-93-307(b)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s failure to provide a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking SIS required reversal | Lane: Written statement is mandatory under § 16-93-307(b)(5); absence is reversible error | State: Issue was not preserved because Lane did not object below | Court: Issue not preserved on appeal under controlling precedent (affirmed) |
| Whether the revocation hearing occurring 63 days after arrest violated the 60-day requirement and required reversal | Lane: Statute requires hearing within 60 days; 63 days is untimely and illegal | State: Lane waived the 60-day objection by not objecting before the period expired and even requested a continuance at hearing | Court: Sixty-day limit is not jurisdictional; Lane waived objection by failing to timely object (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brandon v. State, 300 Ark. 32, 776 S.W.2d 345 (Ark. 1989) (court’s precedent-authority on preservation and limits of overruling lower-court authority)
- Haskins v. State, 264 Ark. 454, 572 S.W.2d 411 (Ark. 1978) (sixty-day revocation-hearing limit is not jurisdictional; defendant must object to invoke it)
- Bilderback v. State, 319 Ark. 643, 893 S.W.2d 780 (Ark. 1995) (sixty-day limitation is mandatory only where defendant is arrested for violation and purpose is to limit detention awaiting hearing)
- Olson v. Olson, 2014 Ark. 537, 453 S.W.3d 128 (Ark. 2014) (lack of presence at hearing may excuse preservation requirements where defendant had no opportunity to object)