This state appeal involves one issue: whether the circuit court erred in releasing appellee Lawrence Britt on a bed-space bond. We conclude that the court did err, and we reverse and remand.
On October 10, 2005, a felony information was filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court against Britt, charging him with two counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-74-107 (Repl. 2005). The prosecutor stated the following facts at the plеa hearing. On August 21, 2004, Britt was traveling north in his automobile on Arapaho Trail in Little Rock when he fired several shots at Ernest Tyler, who was standing in front of his residence at the time. Tyler was struck in the arm by one of the shots. Britt then made a u-turn in his automobile and аpproached the residence from the southbound direction. Britt fired several more shots in the direction of Wanda Harris, Tyler’s girlfriend, who was now also standing in front of the residence. Harris was shot four times, and her pelvic bone was frаctured. Britt fled the scene of the crime and was subsequently arrested.
On May 10, 2006, Britt pled guilty to both counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle. The circuit court entered a judgment and commitment order, sentencing him to twenty yeаrs in prison and ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $2,695 for damage caused to the victims’ automobiles during the shooting. The circuit court also ordered Britt to be released pursuant to Act 1261 of 2005, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-122 (Repl. 2006), whiсh allows nonviolent offenders to be temporarily released from custody on a bed-space bond until bed space is available in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From this judgment and commitment order, the State appeals.
The State contends, as its sole point, that § 16-90-122 only allows for the temporary release of nonviolent offenders and that because Britt committed a violent offense, he should not have been releasеd. The State further asserts that though Britt has since been incarcerated in the Department of Correction because a bed became available, the appeal should not be considered moot. The State mаkes this assertion because this appeal involves a matter of public interest and because any issue regarding a release on a bed-space bond will frequently become moot before an appeаl can be heard since bed space most likely will be made available during the interval.
Britt, in response, concedes that the appeal should not be considered moot and makes no argument that he committed a nоnviolent felony, which would place him within the purview of § 16-90-122. His only argument is that it is within the inherent power of the circuit courts to enter sentencing orders regardless of any statute enacted by the General Assembly. In short, he asserts that the legislаtive and executive branches of government may not exercise powers held by the judiciary.
In support of its argument, the State urges that the circuit court misinterpreted § 16-90-122 when it allowed a violent offender to be eligible for а bed-space bond. We review issues involving statutory construction de novo, as it is for this court to decide the meaning of a statute. See Crawford v. State,
When reviewing issues of statutory interpretation, we are mindful that the first mle in considering the meaning and effect of a statute is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Richard’s Honda Yamaha,344 Ark. 44 ,38 S.W.3d 356 (2001); Dunklin v. Ramsay,328 Ark. 263 ,944 S.W.2d 76 (1997). When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort to rules of statutory construction. Burcham v. City of Van Buren,330 Ark. 451 ,954 S.W.2d 266 (1997). A statute is ambiguous only where it is open tо two or more constmctions, or where it is of such obscure or doubtful meaning that reasonable minds might disagree or be uncertain as to its meaning. ACW, Inc. v. Weiss,329 Ark. 302 ,947 S.W.2d 770 (1997). When a statute is clear, however, it is given its plain meaning, and this court will not search for legislative intent; rather, that intent must be gathered from the plain meaning of the language used. Ford v. Keith,338 Ark. 487 ,996 S.W.2d 20 (1999); State v. McLeod,318 Ark. 781 ,888 S.W.2d 639 (1994). This court is very hesitant to interpret a legislative act in a manner contrary to its express language, unless it is clear that a drafting error or omission has circumvented legislative intent. Id.
Crawford,
Because the State’s ability to aрpeal is not a matter of right, this court will only hear appeals from the State when we agree with the Attorney General “that the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires review” by this court. Ark. R. App. P. - Crim. 3(c). We have said in this regard that “[sentencing and the manner in which statutory punishment provisions may be imposed arise in every criminal case where a conviction is obtained; hence, the application of our statutory sentencing proсedures requires uniformity and consistency.” State v. Joslin,
Both the State and Britt agree that this case should not be deemed moot because it involves an issue of public interest and one that is capable of repetition yet evading review, which are two recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine. See Delancy v. State,
Section 16-90-122 reads:
(a) Any circuit judge may authorize the temporary release of an offender in thе sheriff s custody who has:
(1) Been found guilty of or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a nonviolent felony offense in circuit court, except nonviolent Class Y felony offenses listed in § 16-93-611; and
(2) Been sentenced to a term of imprisonment and committed to the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Correction and is awaiting transfer to the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Correction.
(b) (1) The judge may authorize the release under the terms and conditions which he or she determines are necessary to protect the public and to ensure the offender’s return to custody upon notice that bed space is available at the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Correction.
(2) The judge may require a cash or professional bond to be posted in an amount suitable to ensure the offender’s return to custody.
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-122 (Repl. 2006). 1 The languagе of the statute is clear and unambiguous and specifically states that circuit judges are authorized to release nonviolent offenders on bed-space bonds. Hence, the plain meaning of the statute is that only nonviolеnt offenders may be temporarily released, not violent offenders.
Britt pled guilty to two charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle pursuant to § 5-74-107 of the Arkansas Criminal Gang, Organization, or Enterprise Act. That Act defines а “crime of violence” as “any violation of Arkansas law if a person purposely or knowingly causes, or threatens to cause, death or physical injury to another person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-74-103 (Repl. 2006). By firing shots from a rifle in the direction of the victims, Tyler and Harris, Britt purposely and knowingly tried to cause death or physical injury to his victims. He is, without question, a violent offender and should not have been eligible for a bed-space bond.
Britt’s only argument in rebuttal is that the circuit сourt had the inherent power to order Britt temporarily released pending the availability of bed space regardless of any statute enacted by the General Assembly. He bases his argument on the separation-of-powers doctrine. He does not make the specific argument that the bed-space bond statute itself violates the separation-of-powers doctrine but only contends that the circuit court had the authority to releаse him regardless of the statute.
This court has often stated that sentencing is entirely a matter of statute and shall not be done other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Sеe, e.g., Scissom v. State,
The General Assembly has enacted § 16-90-122, which allows only nonviolent offenders who have been sentenced to prison to be released on bed-space bond. As a result, the circuit court only had the authority to act as the statute directed, and the circuit court erred in exceeding that authority. Because sentencing is a legislative function, there is no separation-of-powers violation by requiring circuit courts to abide by sentencing statutes. We hold that the circuit court did not have the authority to release Britt on a bed-space bond. We reverse the judgment and commitment order only with respect to the bed-space-bond provision and remand the matter to the circuit court with directions to enter an amended judgment and commitment order consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
This statute was adopted in 2005 and was not in effect at the time the crimes at issue in this case were committed. However, because the statute is procedural, it can apply to crimes committed before its adoption. See, e.g., Nooner v. State,