Wells v. State

2016 Ark. 449 (2016) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 8, 2016 · No. CR-16-411

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas granted Willie Wells's petition for a writ of certiorari concerning the denial of an appeal bond following his drug-possession conviction. The court held that Wells presented a substantial question of law or fact regarding whether the cocaine constituted a usable amount and remanded for a new bail hearing within seven days.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
December 8, 2016
Docket number
CR-16-411
Procedural posture
Wells petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari challenging the denial of an appeal bond while his direct criminal appeal was pending. The court accepted certification from the Arkansas Court of Appeals, obtained a supplemental record through partial treatment of a related mandamus petition, granted certiorari, and remanded for a new bond hearing.
Standard of review
Certiorari corrects proceedings erroneous on the face of the record when no other adequate remedy exists and may be used in the appellate court's exercise of superintending control over a lower court proceeding illegally. A plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion is required. In reviewing appeal-bond determinations, the court applied Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 6.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential within Arkansas.
Parties
Willie Wells v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
writ_granted

Topics

writ of certioraribailappellate procedurecriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedurebailwrit of certiorari

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a writ of certiorari was the proper vehicle to review the denial of an appeal bond.
  2. Whether Wells's appeal raised a substantial question of law or fact sufficient to satisfy Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 6.
  3. Whether Wells could pursue certiorari pro se concerning the separate appeal-bond matter while represented by appellate counsel in the direct appeal.

Holdings

  1. A writ of certiorari is the appropriate vehicle for relief in bail proceedings, and the Supreme Court could review the denial of Wells's appeal bond through certiorari.
  2. Wells's argument that he could challenge whether the amount of cocaine was a usable amount presented a substantial question of law or fact under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 6, even though the issue need not ultimately be meritorious.
  3. Wells was not impermissibly competing with appellate counsel because the appeal-bond proceeding was separate from his direct appeal, even though counsel represented him in the direct appeal.

Key quotations

A demonstration of a plain, manifest, clear, and gross abuse of discretion is essential before this court will grant a petition for writ of certiorari. (at 2)
The issue need not be one that is ultimately meritorious, provided that the question of law or fact presented is substantial. (at 3)

Factual background

Wells was convicted of possessing cocaine and had an ongoing direct appeal. He sought an appeal bond, arguing that his appeal raised a substantial question concerning whether the cocaine involved was a usable amount. The circuit court found by clear and convincing evidence that he was not likely to flee but concluded that his appeal did not raise a substantial question of law or fact.

Procedural history

Wells was convicted of drug possession in the Crittenden County Circuit Court and pursued a direct appeal in the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The circuit court denied his motion for an appeal bond after finding that he was unlikely to flee but that his appeal did not raise a substantial question of law or fact. The Arkansas Supreme Court accepted certification of Wells's certiorari petition, ordered a supplemental record containing the bond-hearing transcript, and remanded for a new bond hearing.

Remand instructions

The circuit court was directed to hold a new hearing on bail within seven days of entry of the order, in accordance with the court's decision.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…