Williams v. State

682 S.W.3d 313

2024 Ark. 7

Robert J. WILLIAMS, Jr., Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-23-342

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: February 8, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 02CR-20-212], HONORABLE RANDY PHILH-OURS, SPECIAL JUDGE

Short Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, for appellant.

JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice

₁Appellant Robert J. Williams, Jr., appeals an Ashley County Circuit Court order convicting him of capital murder and aggravated assault and sentencing him to life imprisonment without parole and a term of twenty-eight months’ imprisonment, respectively. For reversal, Williams argues that (1) the circuit court abused its discretion by granting the State’s motion for continuance; (2) Williams’s speedy-trial rights were violated; and (3) the circuit court erred in denying his Batson challenge during voir dire. We affirm.

I. Facts

Because Williams does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, we provide only a recitation of the facts relevant to the arguments on appeal. On August 13, 2020, Dominic Lewis was shot six times while standing on a street in Crossett. During the course of the investigation, police identified Williams as the shooter. An eyewitness saw Williams run toward the residence of Brad Hayes. Investigators Hunter Smith and Tad Huntsman cleared ₂Hayes’s residence, looking for Williams, and saw in plain view two rounds of live ammunition, a credit card with Williams’s name on it, and other documentation with Williams’s name. In the living room, they also found a Glock box for a Glock model 20 pistol. Law enforcement located Williams in Union County where they found him in a bathroom of a residence. There, they detected a strong odor of bleach. Officers also found a pair of socks and pants that later tested positive for gunshot residue and the victim’s blood. Williams was taken into custody and transported to Crossett.

On September 17, 2020, the State charged Williams with capital murder, aggravated assault, terroristic threatening, and possession of firearms by certain persons. The circuit court scheduled an omnibus hearing for October 30, and on defense counsel’s oral motion, the circuit court entered an order resetting the omnibus hearing for April 26, 2021. In its November 4, 2020 order, the circuit court excluded the period from October 30, 2020, to April 26, 2021, for speedy-trial purposes.

On April 23, 2021, Williams filed a motion to disqualify Circuit Judge Crews Puryear because Judge Puryear had been employed as a deputy prosecuting attorney in the Tenth Judicial District during Williams’s case. According to Williams’s motion, Robert Gibson III served as the prosecutor during the first hearing of Williams’s case and represented that the prosecutors "would all be working on the prosecution of Williams." Subsequently, on April 27, 2021, Judge Puryear entered an order stating that he had "never worked on the case" but "out of an abundance of caution" and to avoid "an appearance of impropriety" would recuse himself from the matter. The order further stated that "[t]he period of time from today’s date until this matter is reset is hereby ordered excluded for purposes of speedy trial."

₃Circuit Judge Quincey Ross was assigned to the case and entered an order on June 2, 2021, resetting the omnibus hearing for August 3, a pretrial hearing for October 18, and the jury trial for November 17–19. The circuit court also entered a second June 2 order stating that the period of time from April 26 to August 3 was excluded from the computation of speedy trial because the case had transferred from one circuit court division to another. At the scheduled October 18 pretrial hearing, defense counsel waived speedy trial, and the circuit court stated, "[W]ith that, we’ll take a continuance on defense’s motion[.]"

On November 3, 2021, this court assigned the case to Circuit Judge Robert Edwards. On November 10, 2021, the circuit court reset the jury trial for February 1-4, 2022, and ruled that the period of time from November 17 to February 1 would be excluded for speedy-tidal purposes.

On January 5, 2022, Williams filed a motion to dismiss the charges and, alternatively, requested that the Tenth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office be disqualified from representing the State in the matter. In his motion, Williams averred that Sandra Bradshaw, a deputy prosecuting attorney, had previously served as Ashley County Circuit Court Judge and had "presided over the initial appearance, initial plea, appointment of counsel, setting of bond, setting of conditions of release, waiver of extradition, finding of probable cause, and issuance of arrest warrants[.]" He claimed that his due- process rights had been violated and, citing Arkansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12, requested the disqualification of Bradshaw and the entire Tenth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. The State conceded that the Tenth Judicial District Prosecuting Attorney’s Office should recuse itself and filed a motion for appointment of special prosecuting attorney. Additionally, Bradshaw ₄filed a notice of disqualification "voluntarily disqualifying [herself] from the case out of an abundance of caution."¹

On January 19, 2022, the circuit court granted the State’s motion for appointment of special prosecuting attorney and ordered the Office of the Prosecutor Coordinator to make a recommendation. In its order, the circuit court stated that "speedy trial [will] be tolled from the period of time from the filing of this motion until the Special Prosecuting Attorney has been appointed." On February 7, 2022, the circuit court appointed Special Prosecutors Jack McQuary and Ryan Cooper.

A timeline of events that transpired after February 7, 2022, is revealed in Court’s Exhibit 1, which contains emails between the parties, the circuit judge, and court personnel. On February 11, the circuit court emailed the parties, attempting to schedule a half-day pretrial hearing to dispose of all the motions, and offered the dates of March 14, 16, or 17. On February 16, defense counsel responded, "Neither defense counsel is available on March 17, 2022[.]" When the circuit court inquired about March 14 or March 16, defense counsel later emailed, "I have a capital jury trial … that entire week." On February 16, the circuit court noted potential scheduling conflicts, stated that it wanted "to move the Williams case ₅along[,]" and set the pretrial hearing for March 17, noting that it would "grant a continuance of Williams pre-trial if [defense counsel] request[s]." On February 18, the circuit court set the jury trial for April 18 and told the parties to "let [the court] know by Feb 22 if you have a problem." According to their emailed responses, both the defense and the State had conflicts with April 18. On February 21, the circuit court wrote, "While the case remains set for jury trial on April 18th, I have one other date available: May 3. Is that better?" On February 22, defense counsel notified the court that he had a conflict with May 3. That day, the circuit court responded, "I have to consider that this case is 18 months old and further unnecessary delays can’t be approved…. [T]he jury trial continues to be set for April 18 (or May 3 if all counsel agree)[.]"

At a March 22, 2022 pretrial hearing, the circuit court stated that it still did not yet have a firm date for the jury trial. The prosecutor represented that the parties had discussed a date in June, but defense counsel had a conflict and was required to be in federal court at that time. The circuit court tentatively set the trial date for April 18 and reminded counsel that "this is a capital murder case." On March 29, the circuit court emailed, "Am I to assume that both of you have resolved any conflicts you had with the April 18th trial date?" On March 30, defense counsel indicated that he had a different case still pending trial. On March 31, the circuit court emailed the parties indicating that it would continue the trial from the April 18 date if Williams, or if both parties, filed a motion for continuance with speedy trial tolled.

On April 5, 2022, defense counsel emailed the circuit court and the State that the case should proceed to trial on April 18. The State responded that defense counsel’s move was a last-minute switch "on the eve of trial" and requested that the circuit court set the ₆trial for June 27. Defense Counsel Short replied that he was available on June 13-24. Both special prosecutors agreed to those dates. Defense Counsel Rogers stated that she had a conflict with June 13-17 and proposed June 20-July 1. The special prosecutors again agreed to those dates. The circuit court stated that another case was scheduled at that time, so it left the jury trial scheduled for April 18.

On April 6, 2022, the State filed a motion for a continuance. In its motion, it stated that multiple conflicts had arisen over the past two months and that it had relied on many factors that indicated April 18 was considered a placeholder date. The State asserted that several crime-laboratory witnesses had prior commitments, and it requested that the circuit court grant its motion and continue the matter until the end of June or the proposed May 3 date. Williams responded that the State had not met the requirements of Rule 28.3(d) to justify a continuance and requested that the circuit court deny the State’s motion. On April 11, 2022, the circuit court entered an order granting the State’s motion and resetting the jury trial for May 23. The order stated that the delay from April 18 to May 23 constituted an excluded period because (1) the special prosecutors had only been appointed since February 8 and needed additional time to prepare the capital-murder case; and (2) several expert witnesses were unavailable for the prior trial setting.

Subsequently, the State filed motions to continue on April 13, 2022, and April 18, 2022, because of the ...