Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ayala v. State
Citations: 92 Ark. App. 356; 214 S.W.3d 282Docket: CA CR 04-1332
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; September 28, 2005; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge, addresses the appeal of a criminal case where the appellant was convicted of harassment in district court and sought a jury trial in circuit court. The circuit court dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's attorney's failure to appear at a pretrial hearing. The attorney subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming he did not receive notice of the hearing, but the trial court took no action. On appeal, the appellant contends that the dismissal of his appeal denied him his right to a jury trial without an express waiver, as mandated by *Duty v. State*, 45 Ark. App. 1, 871 S.W.2d 400 (1994). The court agrees, referencing *Harrell v. City of Conway*, 296 Ark. 247, 753 S.W.2d 542 (1988), which established that a circuit court’s dismissal of an appeal from a municipal court infringes on the appellant's statutory right to a jury trial, thus warranting reversal. Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-96-508 (1987) states that if an appellant fails to appear at trial, the circuit court may affirm the inferior court's judgment. However, as clarified in *Williams v. State*, 79 Ark. App. 216, 85 S.W.3d 561 (2002), this provision applies only to failures to appear at a trial, not at a pretrial hearing. The court concludes that the dismissal was unauthorized since it was based on the attorney's absence from a pretrial hearing. The court underscores that any waiver of the right to a jury trial must be explicit and made by the defendant personally, either in writing or in open court. The dismissal of the appeal constituted a denial of this right without proper waiver, leading to a reversal and remand. Procedural irregularities are noted; the notice of appeal was timely regarding the dismissal but not for the motion for reconsideration. Generally, failure to object would compromise the appeal, but the court acknowledges that the fundamental right to a jury trial is an exception to this rule. The right to a jury trial is deemed so critical that errors in its denial should be addressed regardless of when they are raised. Reversal and remand are ordered. Five justices agree, while three dissent. Minor amendments to the relevant statute were made after the events of this case, but the court's decision is based on the law as it stood prior. The court emphasizes that the State's argument for dismissal based on the appellant's failure to appear at a pretrial hearing misinterprets § 16-96-508, affirming the appellant's position.