Standridge v. State
423 S.W.3d 677
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Protective orders were issued against Standridge in 2007 and renewed in 2009; the 2009 hearing was continued and ultimately conducted without clear notice to Standridge.
- Standridge was defaulted on December 1, 2009 for violation of the protective order; service of process was reportedly unserved.
- In 2010, Standridge was charged with a second violation for September 8, 2010 and pled guilty to a related charge on April 29–30, 2010, resulting in six years’ probation and a judgment on April 30, 2010.
- Standridge was later arrested again for the September 2010 event, prompting a petition to revoke probation, and a coram nobis writ was filed challenging the 2009 order’s notice.
- A jury found Standridge guilty of violating the protective order in August 2011; probation was revoked and an additional 30-month sentence was imposed to be served consecutively.
- Standridge timely appealed the revocation order, raising challenges to the validity of the order and to a defense motion to disqualify the deputy prosecutor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order of protection was void for notice/participation failures. | Standridge argued the order was issued after an improper hearing with no notice or opportunity to participate. | State contends the circuit court had jurisdiction and the guilty plea waives insufficiency arguments; notice issues do not void the crime. | Order valid; jurisdiction proper; guilty plea waives challenge. |
| Whether the trial court should have disqualified the deputy prosecutor. | Standridge claimed bias from deputy prosecutor based on past conduct and communications. | State argued no misconduct and standard abuse-of-discretion review applies; no demonstrated prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; no disqualifying conflict shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. State, 93 Ark.App. 112, 217 S.W.3d 162 (Ark. App. 2005) (disqualification requires evidence of misconduct; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Wilburn v. State, 346 Ark. 137, 56 S.W.3d 365 (Ark. 2001) (conflict-of-interest prejudice must be real and demonstrable)
- Jones v. Vowell, 99 Ark. App. 193, 258 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. App. 2007) (writ of coram nobis not appropriate for the circumstances)
- Rhoades v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 730, 379 S.W.3d 659 (Ark. App. 2010) (plea admission waives insufficiency defenses)
- Thomas v. State, 367 Ark. 478, 241 S.W.3d 247 (Ark. 2006) (coram nobis limited to fundamental errors; remedy improper here)