Randy Mitchell v. State of Arkansas
2022 Ark. App. 219
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Randy Mitchell was charged with terroristic threatening, violating an order of protection, and intimidating a witness; this appeal concerns only the alleged violation of an order of protection.
- The State relied on a one-page proof-of-service/declaration form showing in-person service on November 6, 2018; the printed name of Deputy Marc Boyd appears but the server’s signature line in the declaration was blank.
- Mitchell moved for a declaratory judgment arguing the proof of service was facially defective (unsigned, not under penalty of perjury) and therefore the order of protection was not properly served and should be excluded.
- At a pretrial hearing Deputy Boyd testified he served Mitchell and, under oath and penalty of perjury, stated service occurred despite the unsigned declaration; Mitchell disputed having been served at the listed address.
- The circuit court denied Mitchell’s motion for declaratory judgment; Mitchell filed an interlocutory appeal challenging that denial.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and declined to reach the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Mitchell’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has jurisdiction over Mitchell’s interlocutory appeal | Mitchell: Rule 2(a) of Appellate Procedure and due-process concerns justify interlocutory review | State: No general right to interlocutory appeal in criminal cases; exceptions are narrow | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; interlocutory relief not available and claimed due-process exception premature |
| Whether a declaratory-judgment motion is proper to attack proof of service in a criminal case | Mitchell: Jegley permits declaratory relief; proof of service is facially defective so order should be excluded | State: Declaratory relief not proper in criminal pretrial posture; proof can be shown by other evidence (actual service) | Court declined to reach the merits; noted substance controls over title and that criminal appellate rules govern |
| Whether the unsigned declaration renders service invalid as a matter of law | Mitchell: Missing signature/penalty clause makes proof of service defective and invalidates service | State: Actual service can be proven by testimony (Deputy Boyd’s sworn statement); proof of service form defect does not necessarily void service | Not decided on appeal; factual dispute and evidentiary matters were premature for interlocutory review |
Key Cases Cited
- Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600 (sup. Ct. 2002) (addressing availability of declaratory relief)
- Israel v. Oskey, 92 Ark. App. 192 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (distinguishing service from proof of service; proof may be established by other means)
- Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134 (sup. Ct. 2007) (substance of a motion controls over its title)
- Butler v. State, 311 Ark. 334 (sup. Ct. 1992) (no general right to interlocutory appeal in criminal cases)
- Edwards v. State, 328 Ark. 394 (sup. Ct. 1997) (pretrial due-process issues are generally premature for interlocutory review)
- Williams v. State, 371 Ark. 550 (sup. Ct. 2007) (illustrating narrow exceptions to interlocutory review in criminal matters)