Wells v. State, 2016 Ark. 449

Willie Wells, pro se, sought a writ of certiorari challenging the trial court’s denial of an appeal bond after his drug-possession conviction.
The Arkansas Supreme Court accepted certification from the Court of Appeals; certiorari is the proper remedy for bail disputes.
The State argued the record was insufficient because no written ruling on the bond motion was included; the Court ordered a supplemental record with the bond-hearing transcript.
The trial court found Wells was not likely to flee but concluded he had not shown his appeal raised a substantial question of law or fact.
Wells argued the appeal could challenge whether the cocaine amount was a usable amount; that issue appears in the appellate brief.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and remanded for a new bond hearing, directing the circuit court to hold the hearing within seven days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certiorari is available to review denial of appeal bond	Wells: certiorari appropriate to review bail denial	State: record insufficient and appellant is represented on direct appeal so pro se petition improper	Certiorari is proper in bail matters; pro se filing permitted here because bond issue is separate from the direct appeal
Whether the trial court needed to provide a written ruling on the bond motion	Wells: supplemental record (transcript) should suffice	State: absence of written ruling makes record insufficient	Trial court not required to issue written findings; transcript ordered and considered
Whether the trial court erred in finding the appeal did not raise a substantial question	Wells: appeal challenges usable-amount of cocaine — a substantial question	State: trial court correctly found no substantial question	Court held the usable-amount issue is a substantial question under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 6 and warrants reconsideration of bail
Standard for granting bail pending appeal	Wells: satisfied Rule 6 criteria (no flight risk; substantial question)	State: Rule 6 not satisfied (no substantial question)	Court reiterated Rule 6: bail requires clear-and-convincing no flight/danger and that appeal raises substantial question; remanded for new hearing applying that standard

Meeks v. State, 341 Ark. 620 (certiorari is appropriate vehicle for relief in bail proceedings)
Perry v. State, 275 Ark. 170 (trial court not required to provide written findings when altering bond)
Smith v. State, 345 Ark. 472 (standard for certiorari and review of bail denials)
Casement v. State, 318 Ark. 225 (Rule 6 sets controlling procedure for appeal-bond determinations)
Olmstead v. Olmstead, 373 Ark. 354 (discussion of Rule 6 criteria for appeal bonds)
Vineyard v. State, 29 Ark. App. 180 (appeal must raise a substantial question; question need not be meritorious)