William Thompson v. Melba Smith Woodard

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

DECEMBER 14, 2000

WILLIAM THOMPSON

Appellant

v.

MELBA SMITH WOODARD

Appellee

CR 99-283

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, NO. LCIV-97-40-3, HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1995, appellant was convicted by jury in the Washington County Circuit Court of delivery of a controlled substance (cocaine) and was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The court of appeals affirmed. Johnson v. State, CACR 96-38 (Ark. App. Dec. 4, 1996). Subsequently, appellant filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) had incorrectly calculated his transfer eligibility date and had denied him meritorious good time. The circuit court denied the petition. We affirm.

Parties may not change their argument on appeal and are limited to the scope and nature of their arguments made below. Hunter v. State, 330 Ark. 198, 203, 952 S.W.2d 145, 148 (1997). Appellant argued in his petition that the ADC had incorrectly calculated his transfer eligibility date. The circuit court concluded that the transfer eligibility date had been properly calculated. Appellant does not assign error to the circuit court's ruling. Rather, he now contends that he did not challengehis transfer eligibility date below, but instead contested the calculation of his flat date. He submits that the circuit court erred in failing to address that issue in its ruling. We decline to address the issue because appellant has abandoned the argument he made below, and the point now argued was not preserved for appellate review. Dillard v. State, 313 Ark. 439, 443, 855 S.W.2d 909, 912 (1993). Appellant also contended in his petition that the ADC had denied him meritorious good time. The circuit court did not issue a ruling on the issue. We have repeatedly said that the failure to obtain a ruling on an issue at the trial court level, including a constitutional issue, precludes review on appeal. Jackson v. State, 334 Ark. 406, 412, 976 S.W.2d 370, 373 (1998).

Appellant has set forth a third point on appeal. He argues that the trial court erred when it failed to make written findings of facts and conclusions of law in denying his petition. Appellant did not raise this argument below. It is well settled that we will not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Miner v. State, 342 Ark. 283, 288, 28 S.W.3d 280, 283 (2000).

Affirmed.

Thornton, J. not participating.