Lockhart v. State
2017 Ark. 13
| Ark. | 2017Background
- In November 2013 Officer Troy White stopped Lockhart after observing a vehicle driving slowly, weaving, and crossing lane lines; Officer White smelled alcohol and observed a stagger and confusion about Lockhart’s residence.
- Lockhart performed limited field sobriety testing, declined the roadside breath test, was arrested, and declined the station breath test after being read a statement-of-rights form and asking for counsel.
- A jury convicted Lockhart of sixth-offense driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refusal to submit to a chemical test; the jury sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 20 years.
- Posttrial Lockhart moved for resentencing, arguing the jury did not have a presentence screening report required by Ark. Code § 5-65-109; the trial court denied relief and the State appealed.
- Lockhart raised additional challenges on appeal: sufficiency of evidence, legality of the traffic stop (probable cause), sufficiency/defect of the criminal information, and admissibility of prior convictions for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lockhart) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DWI | No evidence of impaired motor skills; circumstantial evidence insufficient | Officer smelled alcohol, observed stagger/confusion, and refusal to submit to tests are probative of intoxication | Affirmed — evidence (observations + refusals) sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for refusal to submit chemical test | Officer failed to inform him he had no right to counsel before test; thus refusal conviction improper | Officer explicitly told Lockhart he had no right to an attorney before the machine breath test | Affirmed — officer gave the statutory admonition; refusal conviction stands |
| Motion to suppress / legality of traffic stop | Officer lacked probable cause before activating blue lights | Officer observed weaving and centerline crossings over ~2.5 miles; video and testimony support stop | Affirmed — totality of circumstances established probable cause |
| Sentencing / presentence screening report preservation | Sentencing was unlawful because the court imposed sentence before receiving mandatory presentence screening (§ 5-65-109) | Defendant failed to object at the first opportunity; issue not preserved for appeal | Majority: Not preserved — appeal denied; Concurrence/Dissent: preserved and would remand for resentencing |
| Defective criminal information & prior convictions | Information failed to cite § 5-65-103; two prior convictions had defects so should be excluded | Information sufficiently apprised defendant; certified convictions and file-marks show priors within 10 years | Affirmed — information adequate; prior convictions admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeffries v. State, 434 S.W.3d 889 (Ark. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 694 (Ark. 1999) (credibility and weight are for the fact-finder)
- Medlock v. State, 964 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1998) (refusal to submit to chemical test is admissible circumstantial evidence of guilt)
- Mace v. State, 944 S.W.2d 830 (Ark. 1997) (opinion testimony on intoxication admissible)
- Webb v. State, 385 S.W.3d 152 (Ark. 2011) (affirming stop where vehicle crossed centerline)
- Piercefield v. State, 871 S.W.2d 348 (Ark. 1994) (weaving between lines supports reasonable suspicion to stop)
- Wright v. State, 703 S.W.2d 850 (Ark. 1986) (no right to contact counsel before taking or refusing chemical test)