Paul Criswell v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION I ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOSEPHINE L INKER H ART, Judge CACR05-154 June 21, 2006 PAUL CRISWELL APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CR03-2589] V. HON. CHARLES EDWARD CLAWSON, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS REVERSED AND REMANDED APPELLEE Paul Criswell once again appeals from an order of the Faulkner County Circuit Court denying his motion to reinstate his appeal from district court to circuit court. On February 1, 2006, in an unpublished opinion, we ordered rebriefing because the abstract and addendum in Criswell’s brief failed to conform with the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Criswell has now submitted a conforming brief, and on appeal, he argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his motion to reinstate his appeal. The State has conceded error, and we agree. Therefore, we reverse and remand Criswell’s case. On November 13, 2003, the District Court of Faulkner County found Criswell guilty of two misdemeanors, possession of a controlled substance and possession of an instrument of a crime. On December 15, 2003, Criswell timely lodged his appeal in Faulkner County Circuit Court. Criswell failed to attend a pretrial hearing set on March 19, 2004, and the trial court granted the State’s motion to remand the case back to district court. On November 18, 2004, Criswell moved to reinstate his appeal to circuit court, arguing that he never received notice of the pretrial hearing. The circuit court denied his motion on December 14, 2004, and Criswell filed a timely notice of appeal from that order. Citing Ayala v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Sept. 28, 2005), Criswell argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his appeal because it impinges on his right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the Arkansas Constitution. The State concedes that Criswell’s case is squarely resolved by the supreme court’s opinion affirming the court of appeals in its review of Ayala v. State, ___ Ark.___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Feb. 2, 2006), and we agree. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. P ITTMAN, C.J., and G RIFFEN, J., agree. -2- CA05-154

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.