Miller v. State
2011 Ark. App. 554
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Miller pleaded guilty to delivery of cocaine on June 26, 2006, receiving ten years' imprisonment followed by five years SIS.
- Miller signed written terms and conditions governing his SIS, including not committing new offenses punishable by imprisonment and allowing searches by law enforcement.
- On May 1, 2009, Miller was arrested for possession with intent to deliver, fleeing in a vehicle, and fleeing on foot.
- A petition to revoke Miller's SIS was filed on June 17, 2009 based on alleged violations of the SIS conditions.
- A revocation hearing was held on May 12, 2010, with the written SIS conditions taken as judicially noticed.
- Miller challenges (1) trial court jurisdiction to revoke SIS, (2) sixty-day hearing period under § 5-4-310(b)(2), (3) written notice of time and place under § 5-4-310(b)(3), (4) prosecutorial misconduct for discovery issues, and (5) sufficiency of the evidence to revoke; the court affirms on all points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 5-4-309 | Miller contends lack of arrest/summons deprived court of jurisdiction | State argues § 5-4-309(e) not applicable to timely petition; prior cases reject strict compliance | Jurisdiction affirmed; § 5-4-309(e) inapplicable; strict compliance not required for within-period petitions; Reynolds applies. |
| Sixty-day hearing requirement | Hearing held outside sixty days after arrest violated § 5-4-310(b)(2) | Sixty-day limit applies only when arrested for violation of suspension/probation; not applicable here | Not violated; the provision targets detention timing, not speed; Parks/Bilderback distinguish incarceration status. |
| Written notice of time/place and purpose | No summons or time/place in the petition; due-process violated | Actual notice to Miller suffices; petition identified May 1, 2009 arrest and purpose | Sufficiency of notice upheld; actual notice adequate per Barnes/Reynolds. |
| Brady/prosecutorial misconduct due to informant disclosure | Failure to disclose informant identity violated Brady and impeaching rights | Informant identity not material to SIS revocation; no prejudice; no suppression warrant | No Brady violation or prosecutorial misconduct; informant identity not essential to outcome. |
| Preponderance of the evidence for revocation | State failed to prove violation; signed conditions not properly introduced | Trial court took judicial notice of written SIS conditions; credibility to Barnett favored | Revocation upheld; evidence adequate under preponderance standard; findings not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 282 Ark. 98, 666 S.W.2d 396 (1984) (jurisdiction not defeated by noncompliance with arrest/summons requirements when within suspension period)
- Barnes v. State, 294 Ark. 369, 742 S.W.2d 925 (1988) (statutory language permits summons/arrest, not requires; due-process not violated by non-summonsed approach)
- Bilderback v. State, 319 Ark. 643, 893 S.W.2d 780 (1995) (sixty-day hearing rule related to detention; not mandatory when not arrested for violation)
- Parks v. State, 303 Ark. 208, 795 S.W.2d 49 (1990) (sixty-day limit applicable when defendant detained for revocation; here not controlling)
- Carter v. State, 350 Ark. 229, 85 S.W.3d 914 (2002) (outside-period revocation procedures; outlines jurisdictional concerns)