Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed an order requiring Larry Eugene Barker to reimburse the State for costs of his incarceration under the State Prison Inmate Care and Custody Reimbursement Act. The court rejected or declined to consider Barker's challenges concerning trial-court procedure, equal protection, appointment of counsel or a guardian, the definition of his estate, and an untimely summary-judgment motion. Barker's motion to file a belated reply brief was held moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Barker's claim that the circuit-court proceedings were staged or improperly conducted was preserved for appellate review.
- Whether application of the Inmate Reimbursement Act violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or constituted unlawful discrimination.
- Whether Barker was entitled to appointed counsel in the reimbursement proceeding.
- Whether money given to Barker by his wife was part of his statutory estate subject to recovery under the Inmate Reimbursement Act.
- Whether the circuit court was required to appoint a guardian to protect Barker's rights.
- Whether the circuit court erred by declining to consider Barker's untimely motion for summary judgment.
Holdings
- An issue not raised before the circuit court, including a constitutional argument, is waived and will not be addressed for the first time on appeal.
- Barker failed to establish that application of the Inmate Reimbursement Act violated equal protection or constituted unlawful discrimination; the Act may be selectively applied based on the amount of money in an inmate's account.
- There is no absolute right to appointed counsel in postconviction matters because such matters are civil in nature.
- Money received by an inmate from his wife is part of the inmate's estate subject to recovery under the Inmate Reimbursement Act.
- Appointment of a guardian under Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-29-504(c)(1)(A) is discretionary, and Barker was not entitled to relief absent an argument showing that a guardian was necessary to protect his rights.
- An appellant cannot obtain appellate relief without providing a sufficient record demonstrating error.
Key quotations
“Because appellant failed to raise his claim before the circuit court, the argument was waived.” (2014 Ark. 467, at 2)
“Thus, any money that appellant received from his wife is clearly within the statute’s definition of “estate,” and appellant’s argument on this point is without merit.” (2014 Ark. 467, at 4)
“Based on the plain language of the statute, the appointment of a guardian is within the discretion of the trial court.” (2014 Ark. 467, at 5)
Factual background
Barker had been incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction since October 7, 2003. The State sought reimbursement under the Inmate Reimbursement Act for $6,140.24 held in Barker's inmate account, while evidence showed that Barker's care and custody had cost the State $214,863.94 over 3,817 days. The circuit court found the State's reimbursement claim proven and ordered the funds paid to the Arkansas State Treasury.
Procedural history
The State petitioned the Pulaski County Circuit Court for reimbursement of the cost of Barker's care and custody in the Arkansas Department of Correction. After a hearing, the circuit court found that the State had proved a reimbursement claim exceeding the funds held for Barker and ordered payment of $6,140.24 to the State. Barker appealed, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the order because the record and briefs showed that he could not prevail; the motion to file a belated reply brief was therefore moot.