Cranford v. Crabtree

Bobby Joe CRANFORD, Jr. v. Circuit Judge
Terry CRABTREE

CR 96-294                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 22, 1996


Appeal & error -- prima facie case for speedy-trial violation 
     pleaded -- petition for special writ treated as one for
     prohibition and granted. -- Where the State conceded that
     petitioner had pleaded a prima facie case for violation of the
     speedy-trial rules, and where the State, which has the burden
     of proving speedy-trial compliance, offered no objection to
     the supreme court's treating the petition for a special writ
     as one for prohibition and granting it, the supreme court did
     so.


     Petition for Writ of Procedendo Ad Judicium; granted as Writ
of Prohibition.
     Norwood & Norwood, P.A., by: Doug Norwood, for petitioner.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y
Gen. and Senior App. Advocate, for appellee.
     
     Per Curiam.Per Curiam
April 22, 1996   *ADVREP7*






BOBBY JOE CRANFORD, JR.,
                   PETITIONER,

V.

CIRCUIT JUDGE TERRY CRABTREE,
                   RESPONDENT,

CR 96-294




PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROCEDENDO
AD JUDICIUM





GRANTED AS WRIT OF PROHIBITION.


                           Per Curiam.



     On April 23, 1993, petitioner Bobby Joe Cranford, Jr., was
arrested for DWI and charged with that offense.  On November 17,
1993, he was tried in the Municipal Court of Rogers and found
guilty.  He was sentenced to 4 days of public service, a $500 fine,
$339.25 court costs, alcohol safety school, and a 120-day
suspension of his driver's license.  A formal judgment was entered
that same date.  On December 1, 1993, his appeal of the DWI
judgment was perfected in circuit court.  Since that date, no
action has been taken on his appeal by that court.  On June 21,
1995, Cranford filed a motion to dismiss the judgment against him
for violation of the speedy trial rules.  Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.1 et
seq.
     Cranford advises this court in his brief in support of his
petition that he is seeking this special writ to require the
circuit court to rule on his motion to dismiss so that, in the
event of an unfavorable ruling, he can then proceed with a petition
for writ of prohibition in this court.  Alternatively, he requests
that if a prior ruling by the circuit court is not necessary, we
treat his petition as one for prohibition.  The State in its brief
supporting its response argues that the writ of procedendo ad
judicium is not an appropriate remedy.  Rather, the State contends,
this court can use the writ of mandamus to accomplish the same
purpose, and mandamus is a power of this court enumerated in the
State Constitution.  See Ark. Const. art. 7,  4.
     The State, however, concedes that a prima facie case for
violation of the speedy trial rules has been pled by Cranford.  The
State further states that after discussing this matter with local
prosecutors, it has no objection to this court's treating the
petition as one for prohibition and granting it.
     We agree that a prima facie speedy trial violation has been
pled.  Noting no objection from the State, which has the burden of
proving speedy trial compliance [see McConaughey v. State, 301 Ark.
446, 784 S.W.2d 768 (1990)], we treat the petition as one for
prohibition and grant the same.