Walden v. State
2012 Ark. App. 307
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Walden was convicted of aggravated robbery and the State sought to sentence him as a habitual offender.
- The State moved in limine to exclude testimony about Walden’s prior Oklahoma bank robberies and sentences.
- Walden moved to suppress custodial statements and the hotel-room search as well as to strike the habitual-offender count.
- At suppression, Walden claimed pain from handcuffs, intoxication, and coercive inducement to consent to search.
- The bank teller identified Walden in court; Detective Scamardo testified Walden signed consent and Miranda forms after reading.
- Walden challenged the trial court’s jury instructions, directed-verdict rulings, and the failure to instruct on prior sentences; he also challenged the new-trial ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery | Walden contends there was no proof of a deadly-weapon threat by words or conduct. | State argues the note plus conduct satisfied aggravated robbery. | Evidence supported aggravated robbery; no reversal for insufficiency. |
| Voluntariness of custodial statement | Walden claims coercion from handcuffs and intoxication rendered statements involuntary. | State asserts voluntariness under totality of circumstances; credibility for the suppression court. | Trial court’s suppression ruling not clearly erroneous; statements voluntary under totality. |
| Failure to give lesser-included offense instruction | Walden argues the trial court should have given robbery instruction as lesser-included offense. | State contends no proper proffer of instruction to preserve error. | No reversible error; insufficient record of proffer to require instruction. |
| Trial court's failure to inform jury of prior sentences | Walden seeks jury awareness of three prior bank-robbery sentences under 5-4-502 and 16-97-103. | State asserts statutes allow or refuse advisory information at the court’s discretion. | No error; court properly refused the proffered sentencing-information instruction. |
| Motion for a new trial | Walden contends the sixty-year sentence was influenced by passion of the victim-impact statement. | State argues sentence within statutory range cannot show prejudice; motion timely/preserved. | No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory range and not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemmons v. State, 303 Ark. 354 (1990) (verbal representation suffices to prove weapon in aggravated robbery)
- Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 44 (2001) (failure to instruct on robbery reversible where weapon appears plastic)
- Feuget v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 182 (Ark. App. 2012) (aggravated robbery supported by threat where victim doesn’t see weapon)
- Richardson v. State, 2009 Ark. 206 (Ark. 2009) (timeliness and effectiveness of pre-judgment motion for new trial)
- Tate v. State, 367 Ark. 576 (2006) (prejudice analysis when sentence not maximum)