Donald Victor Ratcliff v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION III

DONALD VICTOR RATCLIFF

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-73

October 11, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE MARION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-27 ]

HON. ROBERT McCORKINDALE, II,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant in this criminal case, a Missouri resident, was questioned in Arkansas and arrested on April 23, 1998, after confessing to sexual abuse of a minor. He posted bond and was released. However, subsequent attempts by Arkansas and Missouri police officers to locate him were unsuccessful. Appellant was ultimately located living under an assumed name in Texas and was arrested, tried, and convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree. From that decision, comes this appeal.

Appellant argues that the trial judge erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges against him on speedy-trial grounds. He asserts that the period from his arrest on April 23, 1998, until October 6, 1998, when a copy of the arrest warrant was faxed to Missouri authorities, was not an excludable period for speedy-trial purposes. We do not agree. In contrast to the case of Duncan v. Wright, 318 Ark. 153, 883 S.W.2d 834 (1994),cited by appellant, where there was simply no showing that the State attempted to serve the defendant, the record in the case at bar shows that there was frequent communication between the Arkansas and Missouri police organizations and repeated failed attempts to locate appellant. We think that the evidence in the present case would support findings that the State made a diligent, good-faith effort to locate appellant, and that appellant's absence or unavailability was due to his own conduct. See Holbert v. Arkansas County Circuit Court, 339 Ark. 462, 5 S.W.3d 474 (1999); see also Brown v. State, 330 Ark. 239, 952 S.W.2d 673 (1997).

Affirmed.

Stroud and Neal, JJ., agree.