State v. Joshaway
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 595
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR09-530
Opinion Delivered December
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLANT,
VS.
EDWARD JOSHAWAY,
3, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR06-38,
HON. L.T. SIMES, II, JUDGE,
APPELLEE,
APPEAL DISMISSED.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
The State of Arkansas appeals a decision of the Phillips County Circuit Court dismissing
a criminal action against Edward Joshaway based on a violation of Joshaway’s right to a speedy
trial. This is the second appeal in this case. See State v. Joshaway, 373 Ark. 9, 280 S.W.3d 26
(2008) (reversing the circuit court’s dismissal of charges due to an allegedly defective arrest
warrant). Upon remand, the circuit court again dismissed the charges, concluding that the State
failed to bring Joshaway to trial within the time limitations of Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 28.1. The State appeals citing Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 28.2(b) and
arguing that the circuit court erred in dismissing the charges because time under speedy trial
began to run anew on the date this court issued its mandate on the prior appeal.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 595
The State’s right to appeal is limited to that allowed by Arkansas Rule of Appellate
Procedure–Criminal 3. See State v. Hayes, 366 Ark. 199, 201, 234 S.W.3d 307, 309 (2006).
Under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure Criminal 3(c), the State may appeal a decision
of the circuit court where the “the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law
requires review by the Supreme Court.”
Rule 28.2(b) provides in relevant part as follows: “[w]hen the charge is dismissed upon
motion of the defendant and subsequently the charge is reinstated following an appeal, the time
for trial shall commence running from the date the mandate is issued by the appellate court.”
The State argues that this Rule provides “plain language” setting out when time on speedy trial
commences after charges have been reinstated following reversal of a dismissal. We agree.
We construe court rules using the same means and canons of construction used to
interpret statutes. McNabb v. State, 367 Ark. 93, 97, 238 S.W.3d 119, 122 (2006). We construe
a statute just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning. Bell v.
State, 371 Ark. 375, 390, 266 S.W.3d 696, 708 (2007). In other words, where the language
is plain, as the State alleges it is in the present case, there is no need for interpretation. See State
v. Townsend, 314 Ark. 427, 431, 863 S.W.2d 288, 290 (1993). The language at issue in Rule
28.2 (b) is clear; therefore, the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law does not
require that this court interpret it. On that basis, the State’s appeal must be dismissed. We also
-2-
CR09-530
Cite as 2009 Ark. 595
note that the State argues that the circuit court misapplied the law to the facts in this case. If
an appeal by the State includes mixed issues of law and fact, it will not be heard. Hayes, 366
Ark. at 202, 201 S.W.3d at 309. The State’s appeal is dismissed.
IMBER, J., not participating.
-3-
CR09-530
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.
