Ark. Code Ann. § 16-96-508 (2026)
Judgment on default
If the appellant shall fail to appear in the circuit court when the case is set for trial or the judge or magistrate who tried the case shall fail to file the transcript and papers as provided in this subchapter and the appellant shall fail to appear and move the court for an order to compel the judge or magistrate to so file within the first three (3) days of the first term of the circuit court beginning more than ten (10) days after the appeal was prayed, then the circuit court may, unless good cause is shown to the contrary, affirm the judgment and enter judgment against the appellant for the same fine or penalty that was imposed in the court of limited jurisdiction, with costs. This judgment shall have the same force and effect as other judgments of the circuit court in cases of convictions or indictments for misdemeanors.
History. Acts 1905, No. 151, § 4, p. 375; C. & M. Dig., § 3385; Pope's Dig., § 4228; A.S.A. 1947, § 44-507; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 281.
Amendments. The 2005 amendment substituted “judge or magistrate” for “justice or other magistrate” following “in the event that the,” and “judge” for “justice” following “compel the,” deleted “of the justice, police, or city court” following “affirm the judgment” and substituted “court of limited jurisidction, with costs” for “inferior court.”
Case Notes
Affirming Judgment.
When the accused fails to appear in circuit court for trial, the circuit court may, unless for good cause shown, affirm the judgment of a justice, police or city court. Jaynes v. State, 212 Ark. 410, 206 S.W.2d 7 (1947).
Evidence sufficient to show prejudicial error where circuit court summarily affirmed municipal court judgment, from which defendant was appealing, when defendant failed to appear in court on time. Prine v. State, 267 Ark. 304, 590 S.W.2d 25 (1979).
Circuit court has no authority to revoke the suspension of an affirmed sentence because of failure to appear and failure to pay costs. Wade v. State, 269 Ark. 685, 599 S.W.2d 764 (Ct. App. 1980).
Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to hold the trial in defendant's absence, dismissing the appeal, and ordering that the municipal court sentence be put into execution because defendant failed to appear for trial. Whitmire v. State, 50 Ark. App. 34, 901 S.W.2d 20 (1995).
Dismissal Improper.
Dismissal of defendant's appeal on the grounds that his attorney failed to appear at a pretrial hearing was improper; where dismissal of the appeal from district court was not authorized by former § 16-96-508, the effect of the trial court's action was to deny defendant his right to a jury trial without the express waiver thereof required by the Arkansas Constitution. Ayala v. State, 92 Ark. App. 356, 214 S.W.3d 282 (2005), rev'd, 365 Ark. 192, 226 S.W.3d 766 (2006).
Dismissal of defendant's appeal of his conviction in the city court was improper as this section did not apply where defendant only failed to show up to a pre-trial hearing, and the dismissal would waive defendant's right to a jury trial, which he did not waive. Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 192, 226 S.W.3d 766 (2006).
Circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing defendant's appeal pursuant to this section where it based the dismissal on his initial failure to appear, recalled the case the same day, defendant was present when the case was recalled, and the court indicated that it was having a trial that same day. Lampkin v. State, 101 Ark. App. 275, 275 S.W.3d 679 (2008).
Due Process.
Due process dictates that appellant be afforded proper notice and an opportunity to be heard in a proceeding involving the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and that interested parties as well as their attorneys receive notice from the clerk of the court of proceedings scheduled, and that time should be afforded counsel to prepare for trial. Rawls v. State, 266 Ark. 919, 587 S.W.2d 602 (Ct. App. 1979).
Where the defense attorney had two days notice before the trial date that the case would be reset for a day within ten days or two weeks and there was no reason shown for the attorney's stated inability to contact defendant in Iowa so that he could be present for trial, statutory and due process requirements were met. Whitmire v. State, 50 Ark. App. 34, 901 S.W.2d 20 (1995).
Good Cause.
Defendant did not show good cause for not showing up at trial where he claimed his attorney had rescheduled the trial by an agreement with the prosecutor as attorneys cannot vary a trial date set by the court. Rischar v. State, 307 Ark. 429, 821 S.W.2d 25 (1991).
Setting Case for Trial.
Evidence sufficient to constitute a setting of the case for trial within the meaning of this section. Renfro v. City of Conway, 260 Ark. 852, 545 S.W.2d 69 (1977).
Cited: Cableton v. State, 243 Ark. 351, 420 S.W.2d 534 (1967); Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713, 841 S.W.2d 589 (1992); Cagle v. State, 47 Ark. App. 1, 882 S.W.2d 674 (1994); Ibsen v. Plegge, 341 Ark. 225, 15 S.W.3d 686 (2000).