234 [324 Bobby Joe CRANFORD, Jr. v. Circuit Judge Terry
CRABTREE CR 96-294 919 S.W2d 514 Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered April 22, 1996 APPEAL & ERROR - PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SPEEDY-TRIAL VIOLATION PLEADED - PETITION FOR SPECIAL WFUT TREATED AS ONE FOR PROHIBITION AND GRANTED. - Where the State conceded that petitioner had pleaded a prima facie case for violation of the speedy-trial rules,
CRANFORD v. CRABTREE ARK. ] Cite as 324 Ark. 234 (1996) 235 and where the State, which has the burden of proving speedy-trial compliance, offered no objection to the supreme court's treating the petition for a special writ as one for prohibition and granting it, the supreme court did so. Petition for Writ of Procedendo Ad Judicium; granted as Writ of Prohibition. Norwood & Nmwood, PA., by: Doug Nonvood, for petitioner. Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y Gen. and Sr. Appellate Advocate, for appellee. PER CURIAM. On April 23, 1993, petitioner Bobby Joe Cranford, Jr., was arrested for DWI and charged with that offense. On November 17, 1993, he was tried in the Municipal Court of Rogers and found guilty. He was sentenced to 4 days of public service, a $500 fine, $339.25 court costs, alcohol safety school, and a 120-day suspension of his driver's license. A formal judgment was entered that same date. On December 1, 1993, his appeal of the DWI judgment was perfected in circuit court. Since that date, no action has been taken on his appeal by that court. On June 21, 1995, Cranford filed a motion to dismiss the judgment against him for violation of the speedy trial rules. Ark. R. Crim. P 28.1 et seq. Cranford advises this court in his brief in support of his petition that he is seeking this special writ to require the circuit court to rule on his motion to dismiss so that, in the event of an unfavorable ruling, he can then proceed with a petition for writ of prohibition in this court. Alternatively, he requests that if a prior ruling by the circuit court is not necessary, we treat his petition as one for prohibition. The State in its brief supporting its response argues that the writ of procedendo ad judicium is not an appropriate remedy. Rather, the State contends, this court can use the writ of manda-mus to accomplish the same purpose, and mandamus is a power of this court enumerated in the State Constitution. See Ark. Const. art. 7, ยง 4. The State, however, concedes that a prima fade case for violation of the speedy-trial rules has been pled by Cranford. The State further states that after discussing this matter with local prosecutors, it has no objection to this court's treating the petition as one for prohibition and granting it. [1] We agree that a prima fade speedy-trial violation has been
236 [324 pled. Noting no objection from the State, which has the burden of proving speedy-trial compliance [see McConaughey v. State, 301 Ark. 446, 784 S.W2d 768 (1990)], we treat the petition as one for prohibition and grant the same.
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.