Standridge v. State, 452 S.W.3d 103

Standridge was convicted in 2011 of Class D felony violation of a protection order and sentenced to 54 months; his prior probation for a previous protection-order offense was revoked at the same hearing.
The State initially charged Standridge under 5-53-134, then amended to charge under 9-15-207, the latter being part of The Domestic Abuse Act of 1991.
Standridge was not served with notice of the December 1, 2009 hearing at issue, yet the State proceeded under 9-15-207, which the defense argued did not contain criminal elements.
The circuit court denied motions to dismiss or prohibit the amendment; the case went to trial with jury verdict of guilty, followed by sentencing under 54 months and probation revocation.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the probation revocation, and certified the appeal to this court to determine whether there was error in how the State charged and proceeded; the Supreme Court ultimately reversed and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
This decision turns on whether the State could charge and try a person under 9-15-207, which the majority holds is not the criminal offense that would support a Class D felony conviction, instead of charging under 5-53-134.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether charging under 9-15-207 was proper for Class D felony violation of a protection order.	Standridge argues 5-53-134 applies and 9-15-207 is not a criminal offense.	State contends 9-15-207 is the operative statute and governs enforcement.	Lack of jurisdiction; 9-15-207 is not a criminal offense and cannot support a Class D felony conviction.
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing the jury with the proper elements of 5-53-134.	Standridge contends the jury instruction omitted required elements (post-hearing notice).	State maintains the instruction given was appropriate under 9-15-207.	Ruling on the instruction is moot due to jurisdictional defect; conviction vacated for lack of jurisdiction.

White v. State, 260 Ark. 361, 538 S.W.2d 550 (1976) (limits on criminal statutes; strict construction of penal provisions)
Holford v. State, 173 Ark. 989, 294 S.W. 33 (1927) (statutes must be strictly construed; cannot create offenses not plainly enacted)
Duncan v. Kirby, 228 Ark. 917, 311 S.W.2d 157 (1958) (prohibition remedy when no offense is charged; lack of jurisdiction)
White, Holford, and Duncan (cited together), - (-) (illustrate jurisdictional limits when offenses are not properly charged)