Todd v. State
2015 Ark. App. 356
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Michael Todd pled guilty/no contest in 2009 to multiple theft, credit-card fraud, and breaking-and-entering charges in two Hempstead County cases (CR-2009-74 & CR-2009-75).
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 8-year ADC term followed by 7 years suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) with standard conditions (including no new offenses); Todd signed the suspension orders.
- In 2014 the State filed petitions to revoke Todd’s SIS after a Howard County conviction for forgery; the circuit court found the allegations true and revoked the SIS.
- After revocation the court imposed consecutive 60-month sentences across counts and cases (totaling 60 years) and ordered them consecutive to the Howard County sentence; amended sentencing orders followed.
- Todd filed a timely notice of appeal that failed to identify the specific order(s) appealed, mischaracterized the proceeding as a “conviction of the jury,” and did not designate which appellate court he sought.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal did not substantially comply with Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by running revocation sentences consecutively rather than concurrently | Todd argued the court should have run sentences concurrently | State maintained sentencing discretion and sought consecutive terms given multiple convictions and revocation | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed for defective notice of appeal |
| Whether circuit court erred by sentencing without proof of when suspension began (amount of SIS remaining) | Todd argued court lacked evidence of his release date and remaining SIS time, so sentencing was improper | State presented PEN pack showing five years remained and asserted sufficient proof | Not reached on merits — appeal dismissed for defective notice of appeal |
| Whether original sentences were facially illegal under Ark. Code § 5-4-301(a)(2)(A) (raised first time on appeal) | Todd contended original sentences were illegal on their face | State disputed or did not have to address because issue was raised belatedly | Not considered — appellate court lacked jurisdiction due to defective notice |
| Whether appellant’s notice of appeal was sufficient under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a) | Todd filed a timely notice but failed to identify the specific order(s), mischaracterized the proceeding, and omitted appellate court designation | State argued the notice was deficient and jurisdictional defect requires dismissal | Held: Notice was flagrantly deficient; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. United Bank, 448 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (notice of appeal that fails to designate the order appealed is deficient but may be saved if it clearly identifies the order and is timely)
- Hayes v. State, 381 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (discussing application of substantial-compliance principles to criminal notices of appeal)
- Johnson v. De Kros, 435 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (order not mentioned in notice of appeal is not properly before the appellate court)