ARK. A p e.] 263 Herman Levert MITCHELL v. STATE of Arkansas CA CR 84-105 675 S.W.2d 373 Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division II
Opinion delivered September 26, 1984 1. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY - FRAUD IN PROCUREMENT OF BENEFITS - PROSECUTION. - The Arkansas Employment Security Division does not in fact prosecute individuals; when the division is the victim of fraud, the prosecuting attorney's office prosecutes criminal charges. 2. CRI MIN AL LAW - LAXITY IN PROSECUTING OTHERS NOT ORDINARILY A DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. - Laxity in prosecuting others for lesser violations is not ordinarily a defense to criminal prosecution. 3. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY - RECOMMENDATION FOR PROSECUTING ONLY THOSE CHARGED WITH THEFT IN EXCESS OF $500.00 IN BENEFITS - VALID ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. - The Arkansas Employment Security Division's administrative policy of recommending prosecution only when there has been a theft in excess of $500.00 of unemployment benefits is representative of a valid administrative decision-making function, does not create a new statute, and is not improper. 4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EQUAL PROTECTION - CONSCIOUS EXERCISE OF SELECTIVITY IN ENFORCEMENT NOT CONSTITUTION AL VIOLATION PER SE. - Equal protection of the laws necessarily extends to their application; however, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a constitutional violation. 5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION NOT ESTABLISHED. - There is no evidence that the prosecuting attorney's office engaged in selective prosecution, and appellant has not met his burden of proof in establishing an equal protection violation by the Employment Security Division based on its recommendation that only those persons who illegally obtained benefits in excess of $500.00 be prosecuted, where he failed to show that the recommendation was not uniformly applied; nor did appellant establish an absence of a rational basis for the recommendation, where the evidence shows that the $500.00 figure was chosen by the division in • response to a recommendation by the national office of the
264 MITCHELL y. STATE [12 Cite as 12 Ark. App. 263 (1984) Department of Labor that only the most flagrant cases be prosecuted. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Floyd J. Lofton, Judge; affirmed. Bennie O'Neil, for appellant. Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. DONALD L. CORBIN, Judge. Appellant, Herman Levert Mitchell, was charged with violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-2203 (Supp. 1983), theft of property by deception. This offense arose out of an investigative audit conducted by the Arkansas Employment Security Division. The audit allegedly established that appellant had illegally received unemployment benefits in excess of $2,000.00. Fraud was assessed and as the amount in question was in excess of $500.00, the matter was turned over to the office of the prosecuting attorney. In addition to the theft charge, the information provided that appellant was subject to sentence enhancement pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001 (Supp. 1983), as an habitual offender having at least three prior felonies. Appellant waived a trial by jury whereupon the trial court found appellant guilty of the offense. Sentence was fixed at twelve years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. We affirm. On appeal, appellant contends for reversal that the policy of the State of Arkansas, Arkansas Employment Security Division, to prosecute only those persons who fraudulently obtain $500.00 or more in unemployment benefits, regardless of the circumstances, is a discriminatory enforcement of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-2203 in violation of appellant's right to equal protection of the law, has no rational basis, represents an illegal classification, involves an unequal application of the law, and the effect of which has unlawfully usurped the power of the legislature. The prosecutor's office and the Arkansas Employment Security Division are separate and distinct entities. It should initially be noted that the Arkansas Employment Security Division
ARK. APP.] MITCHELL V. STATE 265 Cite as 12 Ark. App. 263 (1984) does not in fact prosecute individuals. It is merely the victim of fraud under these circumstances and the prosecuting attorney's office prosecutes criminal charges. The essence of appellant's argument would appear to be that he should escape punishment because others who fraudulently obtain unemployment benefits under $500.00 are not prosecuted. Such laxity is not ordinarily a defense to criminal prosecution. See, Poe v. State, 251 •Ark. 35, 470 S.W.2d 818 (1971); Taylor v. City of Pine Bluff, 226 Ark. 309, 289 S.W.2d 679, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 894 (1956); Barnett v. State, 183 Ark. 884,39 S.W.2d 321 (1931). It appears to us that the Arkansas Employment Security Division's administrative policy of recommending prosecution only when there has been a theft in excess of $500.00 of unemployment benefits is representative of a valid administrative decision-making function, does not create a new statute and is not improper. Nothing different in the form of punishment was sought nor was there any showing of a difference in treatment in respect to recommending prosecution for all persons who illegally obtained benefits in excess of $500.00. Furthermore, the record reflects that the Benefit Payment Control Unit of the Arkansas Employment Security Division made the decision to seek prosecution and that the prosecutor's office had no input in its decision. When asked by the trial court why the Employment Security Division used $500.00 as the minimum amount, it responded that the national office of the Department of Labor had recommended that . only the most flagrant cases be prosecuted. Equal protection of the laws necessarily extends to their application. Taylor v. City of Pine Bluff, , supra. Howevei-, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a constitutional violation. See, e.g., Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 (1962); United States v. Ojala, 544 F.2d 940 (8th Cir. 1976); United States v. Swanson, 509 F.2d 1205 (8th Cn t . 1975); and Poe v. State, supra. In Oyler v. Boles, supra, certiorari was granted in habeas corpus proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking relief from
266 MITCHELL v. STATE [12 Cite as 12 Ark. App. 263 (1984) conviction under that state's recidivist statute. The United States Supreme Court observed: Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of klective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such , as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. [Cites omitted] We find no merit to appellant s contention that the policy of the Arkansas Employment Security Division violates his right to equal protection of the law and there is no evidence that the proseculing attorney's office engaged in selective prosecution. Therefore, we hold that appellant has not met his burden of proof in establishing an equal protection violation nor did he establish an absence of a rational basis. United States v. Swanson, supra. As stated previously, we believe this administrative policy represents a valid administrative decision-making function. Affirmed. CLONINGER and MAYFIELD, jj., agree.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.