State of Arkansas v. Calvin Holden
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR07-634
Opinion Delivered March 13, 2008
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLANT,
VS.
AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, NO. CR-2006-39,
HONORABLE L.T. SIMES II,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
CALVIN HOLDEN,
APPELLEE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice
The State of Arkansas filed an information charging appellee Calvin Holden, a city
councilman for West Helena, with two counts of theft of property on March 1, 2006. Six
other defendants were charged with similar crimes; those cases are the subjects of the other
six opinions handed down today. See State v. Richardson, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___
(Mar. 13, 2008); State v. Ashwood, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 13, 2008); State v.
Joshaway, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 13, 2008); State v. Weaver, ___ Ark. ___, ___
S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 13, 2008); State v. Lee, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 13, 2008);
State v. Whitfield, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar. 13, 2008). The theft charges arose
from Holden’s alleged acceptance of money designated as salary or bonus payments related to
his service as a public official on behalf of West Helena. The State contended that those
payments were illegal because they represented salary payments for times when Holden would
no longer be in office.
-1-
CR07-634
Bench warrants, authorizing the arrest of Holden and signed by Phillips County Clerk
Wanda McIntosh and Deputy Clerk Geneva Richardson, issued on March 1, 2006, and
March 20, 2006. On December 4, 2006, Holden and his co-defendants moved for dismissal
of the charges against them on the grounds that the arrest warrant had been signed by a
Deputy Clerk and that the subsequent arrest was therefore invalid. Following a hearing on
March 26, 2007, the circuit court entered an order on June 12, 2007, finding that, while Ark.
R. Crim. P. 7.1(c) authorizes a court clerk to sign a warrant, the rule does not “dispense with
the requirement that warrants must be issued by a detached, neutral magistrate who makes an
independent determination of probable cause.” Citing Lamb v. State, 23 Ark. App. 115, 743
S.W.2d 399 (1988), the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the
charges with prejudice.
The State’s sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred in its interpretation
of Lamb, supra, and in dismissing the charges against Holden for an allegedly defective arrest
warrant. We agree.
In the Lamb case on which the circuit court relied, the defendant, Lamb, was arrested
after police obtained a warrant from the deputy clerk of the Little Rock District Court. After
Lamb was convicted, he appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred in denying his motion
to suppress evidence that was seized as the result of an allegedly illegal arrest. At the
suppression hearing, the deputy clerk testified that she issued the warrant herself, without
communicating with the municipal judge, and without any indication from the investigating
officers or the documents that the judge had any knowledge of the facts alleged. In addition,
-2-
CR07-634
the clerk testified that she did not read the factual allegations of the affidavit before signing the
warrant; that she only checked for the prosecutor’s signature, the charge, and the statute
number; and that she issued warrants under these circumstances routinely, as a matter of
policy. Lamb, 23 Ark. App. at 117-18, 743 S.W.2d at 400-01.
The court of appeals held that the trial court should have granted Lamb’s motion to
suppress the evidence seized as a result of his arrest, concluding that the warrant was
improvidently issued. Id. at 118, 743 S.W.2d at 401. Importantly, however, for purposes of
the present case, the Lamb court did not hold that dismissal of the criminal charges was
appropriate; indeed, such a result would have been contrary to our case law.
Our court has consistently held that, while an invalid arrest may call for the suppression
of a confession or other evidence, it does not entitle a defendant to be discharged from responsibility
for the offense. See Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 421, 878 S.W.2d 717, 720 (1994) (emphasis
added); O’Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984); Singleton v. State, 256 Ark.
756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974); see also State v. Holcomb, supra; State v. Block, 270 Ark. at 672, 606
S.W.2d at 362 (opining that it was “unthinkable that a person who has committed murder,
for example, should go scot free just because an officer enters his home without an invitation
and arrests him without a warrant”); State v. Fore, 46 Ark. App. at 30, 876 S.W.2d at 280
(citing above cases and others, and holding that an illegal arrest is not grounds for dismissal of
criminal charges).
Thus, it is apparent that the trial court misinterpreted Lamb as permitting the dismissal
of criminal charges following an allegedly illegal arrest, when that case and the others cited
-3-
CR07-634
above stand only for the proposition that the proper remedy for an illegal arrest is suppression
of any evidence seized as a result thereof. Accordingly, for the reasons set out both above and
in State v. Richardson, supra, we reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for further
proceedings.
-4-
CR07-634
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.