McKenzie v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 712
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No.
CACR08-1447
BLAKE DOWELL MCKENZIE,
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered 28
OCTOBER 2009
APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-08-21-WD]
THE HONORABLE ALAN D. EPLEY,
JUDGE
REVERSED
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
Did the circuit court have jurisdiction over Blake McKenzie’s criminal appeal
from district court? Several months ago, we ordered a supplemental record and
rebriefing to help us answer this question. McKenzie v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 485
(unpublished). The State—in light of the expanded record—confesses error and agrees
with McKenzie’s argument that we should reverse the circuit court’s order dismissing
his appeal. Jurisdiction is a question of law; and we review questions of law de novo.
Pulaski County v. Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 371 Ark. 217, 220, 264 S.W.3d 465,
467 (2007). We must also discharge our independent obligation to pass judgment on
the circuit court’s decision. Burrell v. State, 65 Ark. App. 272, 276, 986 S.W.2d 141,
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 712
143 (1999).
The district court tried McKenzie on 9 April 2008. The court found him not
guilty of two driving-related offenses and guilty of three others. One of those three
was a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-205 (Supp. 2009), based on McKenzie’s
refusal to submit to a chemical test. The district court’s judgment on this charge was
entered on a “Court Session Worksheet”—a combination docket sheet and order.
McKenzie filed a certified copy of the Court Session Worksheet with the circuit clerk
on 8 May 2008—the twenty-ninth day after his trial and conviction. The district
court, however, did not date the judgment section of the Court Session Worksheet.
And the docket section of this paper did not show the trial date. So the circuit court
remanded the case “for entry of the date of trial.” On remand, the district court
entered a separate order reflecting the April 9th trial/judgment date.
When the case returned to circuit court, it was opened under a new case
number. The circuit court, on what appears to have been a less-than-complete file,
dismissed McKenzie’s appeal as untimely: “The District Court records/transcript were
not filed in the Circuit Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment by the Dist[rict]
Court.”
We reverse. McKenzie complied with Rule of Criminal Procedure 36(b) & (c)
by filing a certified copy of the district court’s “Court Session Worksheet” with the
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 712
circuit clerk within thirty days of the district court’s entry of judgment.
The
Worksheet contained all the important information about, and events in, the case
except the date of trial/judgment. This composite document included the docket
sheet. It thus satisfied Rule 36. Cf. McNabb v. State, 367 Ark. 93, 98–99, 238 S.W.3d
119, 123 (2006) (construing the identical provisions of former Inferior Court Rule
9(b), which then governed criminal appeals from district court).
McKenzie’s appeal was timely. The district court’s June order was not a new
judgment or some kind of effort to reopen the appeal window. That June order simply
clarified the date of the district court’s original disposition. The circuit court had
jurisdiction to decide McKenzie’s appeal on the merits. We therefore reverse for that
court to do so.
VAUGHT, C.J., and GLADWIN, J., agree.
-3-
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.
