14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bilderback v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Bilderback v. State, 319 Ark. 643 , 893 S.W.2d 780 (1995) (holding that the requirement that a probation revocation hearing be held within sixty days of arrest did not apply where defendant was incarcerated on another charge when she was served with arrest warrant); see also Beasley, supra (holding that even if a defendant was already incarcerated on another charge, he suffered no prejudice if more than sixty days lapsed before his revocation hearing). 2004See Bilderback v. State, 319 Ark. 643 , 893 S.W.2d 780 (1995) (holding that the requirement that a probation revocation hearing be held within sixty days of arrest did not apply where defendant was incarcerated on another charge when she was served with arrest warrant); see also Beasley, supra (holding that even if a defendant was already incarcerated on another charge, he suffered no prejudice if more than sixty days lapsed before his revocation hearing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dawsongreen2 sentences2002In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Dawson, 343 Ark. 683, 692 , 38 S.W.3d 319, 324 (quoting Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29 , 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999)), wherein this court held that after ninety days a circuit court could not change its judgment in order “to make it speak what it did not speak, but ought to have spoken.” The State counters that the present matter is distinguishable from Dawson in that the modification was not made sua sponte by the court, but rather was made in the context of a probation-revocation hearing, and thus, the issue is governed by Ark. 2002In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Dawson, 343 Ark. 683, 692 , 38 S.W.3d 319, 324 (quoting Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29 , 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999)), wherein this court held that after ninety days a circuit court could not change its judgment in order “to make it speak what it did not speak, but ought to have spoken.” The State counters that the present matter is distinguishable from Dawson in that the modification was not made sua sponte by the court, but rather was made in the context of a probation-revocation hearing, and thus, the issue is governed by Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Lord v. Mazzanatigreen2 sentences2002In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Dawson, 343 Ark. 683, 692 , 38 S.W.3d 319, 324 (quoting Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29 , 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999)), wherein this court held that after ninety days a circuit court could not change its judgment in order “to make it speak what it did not speak, but ought to have spoken.” The State counters that the present matter is distinguishable from Dawson in that the modification was not made sua sponte by the court, but rather was made in the context of a probation-revocation hearing, and thus, the issue is governed by Ark. 2002In support of his argument, Appellant relies on Dawson, 343 Ark. 683, 692 , 38 S.W.3d 319, 324 (quoting Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29 , 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999)), wherein this court held that after ninety days a circuit court could not change its judgment in order “to make it speak what it did not speak, but ought to have spoken.” The State counters that the present matter is distinguishable from Dawson in that the modification was not made sua sponte by the court, but rather was made in the context of a probation-revocation hearing, and thus, the issue is governed by Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Lemons v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See, e.g., Lemons v. State, 310 Ark. 381 , 836 S.W.2d 861 (1992) (stating that a trial court's findings in a probation revocation hearing will be upheld unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence). 2001See, e.g., Lemons v. State, 310 Ark. 381 , 836 S.W.2d 861 (1992) (stating that a trial court's findings in a probation revocation hearing will be upheld unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
Dority v. Stategreen2 sentences1998As our supreme court recently explained in a different context, “in a probation revocation hearing, a trial has already been held, and the defendant convicted.” Dority v. State, 329 Ark. 631, 634 , 951 S.W.2d 559, 561 (1997) (holding that a revocation hearing is not a stage of a criminal prosecution for purposes of Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantees). 1998As our supreme court recently explained in a different context, “in a probation revocation hearing, a trial has already been held, and the defendant convicted.” Dority v. State, 329 Ark. 631, 634 , 951 S.W.2d 559, 561 (1997) (holding that a revocation hearing is not a stage of a criminal prosecution for purposes of Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantees). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haley v. State
green
2 sentences2014Haley v. State, 96 Ark. 2009Haley v. State, 96 Ark. | 2 | 2009–2014 |
Carter v. State
green
2 sentences2024Our supreme court held in Carter that a bench warrant (or “alias warrant”) for failing to appear at a probation- revocation hearing “was not a warrant for [the defendant’s] arrest for violation of probation.” 350 Ark. at 235 , 85 S.W.3d at 918 . 2024Our supreme court held in Carter that a bench warrant (or “alias warrant”) for failing to appear at a probation- revocation hearing “was not a warrant for [the defendant’s] arrest for violation of probation.” 350 Ark. at 235 , 85 S.W.3d at 918 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Goforth v. State
green
1 sentence2022Generally, a defendant in a revocation hearing is not entitled to the full panoply of rights that attend a criminal prosecution, but he or she is entitled to due process.7 As we recognized in Goforth, the United States Supreme Court has held that a defendant is entitled to the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses unless good cause is shown for not allowing confrontation. 8 This holding is codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-307(c)(1),9 which states that “[t]he defendant has the right to counsel and to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness unless the court | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence2016In response to the circuit court, Thompson explained that he was there to represent Baker at the probation-revocation hearing and alleged that he had not received notice of the order to show 2 Cite as 2016 Ark. 383 cause. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Neal v. State
green
1 sentence2016National Drug Court Institute, The Drug Court Judicial Benchbook, § 8:4. 9 Cite as 2016 Ark. 287 allegedly expelled from the drug-court program for horseplaying. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2006Smith v. State, 9 Ark. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Padilla v. State
green
2 sentences1997As we pointed out when considering another issue in Padilla v. State, 279 Ark. 100 , 648 S.W.2d 797 (1983), in a probation revocation hearing, a trial has already been held, and the defendant convicted. 1997As we pointed out when considering another issue in Padilla v. State, 279 Ark. 100 , 648 S.W.2d 797 (1983), in a probation revocation hearing, a trial has already been held, and the defendant convicted. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence1997However, in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), the United States Supreme Court held that a probation revocation hearing is not a stage of criminal prosecution. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Quarles
green
1 sentence1992State v. Quarles, 761 P.2d at 320 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Alfred v. State
green
1 sentence1991Accordingly, we conclude that the court erred when it initiated the contempt proceeding. 758 P.2d at 132 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.