Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-201 (2020)
Qualifications — Waiver
Any judicial district, with the agreement of the parties, may establish a program whereby a defendant may be transferred to a pretrial or post-trial treatment program for drug abuse, provided that:
- The treatment program is at least one (1) year in length and meets the minimum standards of treatment promulgated by the Division of Aging, Adult, and Behavioral Health Services of the Department of Human Services;
- The charge or charges against the defendant carries a punishment which may be suspended;
- The defendant waives his or her rights to a speedy trial and such other rights as are agreed to by the parties and executes a consent for a limited release of confidential information regarding treatment permitting the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney access to information relating to attendance, attitude, participation, and results of drug screens; and
-
- The defendant is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
- This provision may be waived with the consent of the prosecuting attorney.
History. Acts 1994 (2nd Ex. Sess.), No. 53, § 1; 2013, No. 1107, § 14; 2017, No. 913, § 44.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment, in (1), substituted “Division of Behavioral Health Services” for “Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention” and deleted “Health and” following “the Department of”.
The 2017 amendment substituted “Division of Aging, Adult, and Behavioral Health Services” for “Division of Behavioral Health Services” in (1).
Case Notes
Illustrative Cases.
Where appellant did not complete drug court in accordance with § 16-98-201, he was required to serve a six-year sentence for forgery and a ten-year suspended sentence for theft. Under § 5-4-404, he was entitled to 53 days credit for the time he spent in jail before he entered drug court; appellant was not entitled to credit for the time that his case was in drug court. Laxton v. State, 99 Ark. App. 1, 256 S.W.3d 518 (2007).
Probation Revocation.
Where defendant pleaded guilty to commercial burglary, breaking or entering, two counts of theft of property, and first-degree criminal mischief, he was sentenced to 60 months' supervised probation. Because defendant consented to participation in the residential drug treatment in accordance with this section, his placement in a regional punishment facility could not be classified as a probation revocation; when he violated the terms of the drug-court program based on his public intoxication and testing positive for cocaine, the trial court did not err by revoking his probation. Doyle v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 94, 302 S.W.3d 607 (2009).
Subchapter 3 — Arkansas Drug Court Act
Effective Dates. Acts 2003, No 1266, § 5: July 1, 2003. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that there is serious overcrowding in Department of Correction facilities; that the overcrowding is likely to worsen if alternative sentencing measures are not enacted; and that this act is immediately necessary because it is designed to establish a procedure to help alleviate the overcrowding by offering sentencing alternates to person charged with certain drug offenses and should be given immediate effect. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on July 1, 2003.”
Acts 2007, No. 1022, § 6: Apr. 4, 2007. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that there is a critical need for judicial intervention and support for effective treatment programs that reduce the incidence of drug use, drug addiction, and family separation due to parental substance abuse and drug-related crimes; that this act expands drug court programs and creates the Drug Court Advisory Committee; and that this act is immediately necessary because any delay in the expansion of drug court programs or the creation of the Drug Court Advisory Committee will harm citizens of this state who will benefit from judicial monitoring of intensive treatment and strict supervision of addicts in drug and drug-related cases. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”
Acts 2013, No. 282, § 17: Mar. 6, 2013. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that the Constitution of the State of Arkansas prohibits the appropriation of funds for more than a one-year period; that the effectiveness of this act as soon as possible is essential to the operation of the judiciary and the administration of justice; and that this act is immediately necessary because the delay in the effective date of this act could cause irreparable harm upon the proper administration of essential governmental programs. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”
Acts 2013, No. 1460, § 17. Effective on and after January 1, 2014.
Acts 2015, No. 895, § 49: Apr. 1, 2015. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that prison overcrowding is one of the largest problems currently burdening the state both from a public safety and budgetary standpoint; that safe and effective measures are needed to immediately combat this problem; and that this act is immediately necessary because in the interests of public safety and the state budget the Department of Correction, Department of Community Correction, Department of Human Services, and the Parole Board should be allowed to immediately implement these new measures. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”
Acts 2019, No. 910, § 6346(b): July 1, 2019. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that this act revises the duties of certain state entities; that this act establishes new departments of the state; that these revisions impact the expenses and operations of state government; and that the sections of this act other than the two uncodified sections of this act preceding the emergency clause titled ‘Funding and classification of cabinet-level department secretaries’ and ‘Transformation and Efficiencies Act transition team’ should become effective at the beginning of the fiscal year to allow for implementation of the new provisions at the beginning of the fiscal year. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and Sections 1 through 6343 of this act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on July 1, 2019”.
Case Notes
Revocation.
Defendant's drug-court probation under §§ 16-98-301 to 16-98-304 was revoked for failing to attend drug testing, failing to attend a group meeting, and being arrested because she inexcusably failed to comply under former § 5-4-309(d) (now § 16-93-308(d)), despite a delirium diagnosis. Defendant did not show that she was suffering from such on the dates that probation was violated; moreover, an examination showed no mental defect, and her hallucinations were not involved with her probation revocation. Anglin v. State, 98 Ark. App. 34, 249 S.W.3d 836 (2007).
After defendant's drug-court probation was revoked, her argument that she was ineligible due to a mental health issue was not considered on review because it was not raised to the trial court. Anglin v. State, 98 Ark. App. 34, 249 S.W.3d 836 (2007).