Tony Weaver v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
No.
DIVISION I
CACR07-1278
Opinion Delivered
September 24, 2008
TONY WEAVER
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR2006-022]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE FRANK AREY,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge
1.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – ILLEGAL ARREST – NO BASIS FOR SETTING ASIDE CONVICTION .–
Appellant moved to dismiss the charges against him of driving while intoxicated and driving
left of center, arguing that his arrest was illegal; however, an illegal arrest, without more, has
never been viewed as either a bar to subsequent prosecution or a defense to a valid
conviction.
2.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – ILLEGAL ARREST – MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPER VEHICLE
TO CHALLENGE THE ARREST .– Appellant requested that the charges filed against him be
dismissed; however, a motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle to challenge an illegal
arrest; here, because appellant’s motion to dismiss was not the proper mechanism for
challenging his arrest, the appellate court did not need to decide whether the trial court had
jurisdiction to enter a finding of guilt.
Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; Frank Arey, Judge; affirmed.
The Blagg Law Firm, by: Ralph J. Blagg, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Deborah Nolan Gore, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
On November 14, 2007, appellant Tony Weaver was convicted in Conway County
1
Circuit Court of driving while intoxicated and driving left of center. On appeal, Weaver
argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss based on an illegal arrest.
Specifically, he contends that he was arrested beyond the lawful jurisdiction of the arresting
officer. We affirm.
At the hearing on Weaver’s motion to dismiss, Officer Andrew Babcock of the
Menifee Police Department testified that at approximately 11:40 p.m. on October 8, 2005,
he was sitting in his patrol vehicle, which was parked in a gravel driveway off Highway 64,
one mile outside of the Menifee city limits. He was completing some paperwork related to
a traffic citation, when he observed Weaver (driving within the city limits of Menifee on
Highway 64) cross the center line and force another vehicle into the shoulder of the highway.
As Weaver’s vehicle continued on Highway 64, Officer Babcock witnessed it swerve several
times and travel down into-and-out-of an embankment. Once Weaver passed Officer
Babcock, the officer pursued Weaver, stopping (and ultimately arresting) him outside of the
Menifee city limits.
Weaver testified that on October 8, 2005, after attending a bachelor party, he was
driving home on Highway 64. He admitted driving through Menifee and passing Officer
Babcock’s patrol vehicle. Weaver also admitted drinking five beers and one shot of whiskey
that evening. It was Weaver’s testimony that Officer Babcock could not have observed the
alleged violations occur within the Menifee city limits, because the gravel driveway where the
officer was parked was at a lower grade than the highway upon which Weaver traveled.
The trial court denied Weaver’s motion to dismiss, finding that the officer had
-22
jurisdiction to arrest Weaver based on King v. State, 42 Ark. App. 97, 854 S.W.2d 362 (1993),
and Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1. The trial court then moved to the merits of
the case, at which time Weaver stipulated to the facts presented at the hearing. Based on these
facts, the trial court found Weaver guilty of driving while intoxicated and driving left of
center. The crux of Weaver’s argument on appeal is that the trial court was without
jurisdiction to enter a finding of guilt. We do not reach the merits of Weaver’s jurisdictional
argument because we affirm for a different reason.
In this case, Weaver moved to dismiss the charges filed against him, arguing that his
arrest was illegal. However, an illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as either
a bar to subsequent prosecution or a defense to a valid conviction. United States v. Crews, 445
U.S. 463 (1980); Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731 S.W.2d 179 (1987); O’Riordan v. State,
281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984); Clark v. State, 26 Ark. App. 268, 764 S.W.2d 458
(1989); Van Daley v. State, 20 Ark. App. 127, 735 S.W.2d 574 (1987). As the Court explained
in Crews, “the exclusionary principle . . . delimits what proof the Government may offer
against the accused at trial, closing the courtroom door to evidence secured by official
lawlessness.” Crews, 445 U.S. at 474. However, the accused “is not himself a suppressible
‘fruit,’ and the illegality of his detention cannot deprive the Government of the opportunity
to prove his guilt through the introduction of evidence wholly untainted by the police
misconduct.” Id.
In the instant case, Weaver’s request was that the charges filed against him be
dismissed. The motion he filed was entitled “Motion to Dismiss.” In the prayer of that
-33
motion, he requested “an absolute discharge of the charge filed against him and pray[ed] that
the charge against him be dismissed.”
A motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle to challenge an illegal arrest. “An invalid
arrest may call for the suppression of a confession or other evidence, but it does not entitle the
defendant to be discharged from responsibility for the offense.” O’Riordan, 281 Ark. at 426,
665 S.W.2d at 257. Further, the court’s jurisdiction to try an accused does not depend upon
the validity of the arrest. Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 757, 510 S.W.2d 283, 284 (1974)
(holding that “[i]t goes almost without saying that a defendant, after having been fairly tried
in a court of competent jurisdiction and found guilty . . ., is not entitled to be set free on the
basis of some flaw in the manner of his arrest”). Because Weaver’s motion to dismiss was not
the proper mechanism for challenging the arrest, we need not decide the jurisdictional issue.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss and finding Weaver
guilty.1
Affirmed.
P ITTMAN, C.J., and G LOVER, J., agree.
1
We note that Weaver did not move to suppress any evidence pursuant to Arkansas
Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.2. However, contained within Weaver’s motion to dismiss
are two general statements requesting the exclusion of any evidence obtained by Officer
Babcock in the illegal arrest. If we were to liberally construe those statements as a motion
to suppress, we are left with the same result. At trial, no evidence obtained as a result of
the allegedly illegal arrest was introduced. The only incriminating evidence introduced at
trial, which was stipulated to by Weaver, included the officer’s observations prior to the
traffic stop and Weaver’s own testimony that he was drinking and driving. Because
Weaver’s conviction was not based on evidence obtained as a result of the allegedly illegal
arrest, Weaver can show no prejudice. See Ferguson v. State, 343 Ark. 159, 33 S.W.3d 115
(2000).
-44
-55
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.