Ayala v. State

Citations: 226 S.W.3d 766; 365 Ark. 192Docket: CR 05-1138

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 2, 2006; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Salvador Ayala was convicted of harassment and subsequently appealed to the Washington County Circuit Court after his conviction in Farmington City Court. The circuit court dismissed his appeal due to his failure to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference. Ayala filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing he lacked notice of the hearing and that the dismissal infringed on his right to a jury trial. The circuit court did not rule on this motion. Ayala later appealed the dismissal, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's decision, citing the denial of Ayala's right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas granted a petition for review and focused on whether the circuit court erred in dismissing Ayala's appeal. Before addressing the merits, the court needed to determine if the issue was preserved for review. According to Rule 33.3(c) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, the time to file a notice of appeal does not expire until thirty days after the resolution of all posttrial motions. If a motion remains unresolved after thirty days, it is automatically deemed denied. Rule 2(b)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Appellate Procedure states that a notice of appeal filed before the resolution of any posttrial motions is considered filed the day after those motions are deemed denied, and such notice effectively appeals only the underlying judgment.

To appeal the denial of a posttrial motion, a party must amend their notice of appeal within thirty days of the motion being deemed denied. In this case, the circuit court did not rule on the motion for reconsideration, resulting in it being deemed denied on December 16, 2004. The notice of appeal filed on November 29 was effective from the deemed denial date for appealing the underlying judgment. However, the Appellant did not amend the notice of appeal within the required timeframe regarding the denial of the motion for reconsideration, which means those arguments were not preserved for appellate review.

Despite this procedural bar, the court can still review the right to a jury trial on appeal, as it is considered a serious error under established case law. The State conceded that the Appellant was entitled to a jury trial, reaffirming that upon conviction in district court, a defendant has the right to a jury trial when appealing to circuit court, where the case is tried de novo. The Appellant argued he did not waive this right, noting that the trial court cannot deny a jury trial for failing to appear at a hearing. The Arkansas Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial unless explicitly waived, and such a waiver must be recorded as per Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

A defendant can waive the right to a jury trial either by an express written declaration or through counsel in open court, with the waiver recorded. In this case, no waiver occurred. The State argued that the circuit court had authority under Ark.Code Ann. 16-96-508 to dismiss the Appellant's appeal due to failure to appear for trial. This statute allows dismissal only if an appellant does not appear when the case is set for trial. The court identified that the dismissal was based on the Appellant's failure to appear at a pretrial conference on October 25, 2004, not at trial, thus making Ark. Code Ann. 16-96-508 inapplicable. A similar precedent, Williams v. State, affirmed that dismissal under this statute is only warranted for trial absences, leading to the conclusion that the circuit court's dismissal was erroneous.

In Williams v. State, the court of appeals determined that the appellant's absence at a pretrial hearing did not authorize the circuit court to dismiss his appeal, as the relevant statute, section 16-96-508, pertains only to failures to appear at trial. The appellant maintained his right to a jury trial, which was not waived, and the circuit court lacked the authority to reinstate the district court's judgment based solely on the appellant's failure to appear at the hearing. Consequently, the dismissal of the de novo appeal was reversed, and the case was remanded to ensure the appellant's right to a jury trial. The court affirmed the court of appeals' decision and acknowledged dissenting opinions that raised concerns about addressing arguments not presented in the opening brief. The State's assertion that the circuit court could dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's absence at trial was irrelevant, as the dismissal was based on a pretrial absence. Ultimately, the appellant's arguments for a jury trial were valid and warranted reversal of the circuit court's dismissal.