A counter motion filed Tuesday in Faulkner County Circuit Court by the State of Arkansas claims Juvenile Court and Fifth Division Judge Rhonda Wood can hear the criminal case against Faulkner County Administrator Jeff Johnston.
The motion was filed by Deputy Prosecutor Troy Braswell on behalf of Prosecutor Cody Hiland only a day before Johnston was set to appear in court for a pretrial hearing.
The State’s response cites that pursuant to Arkansas Constitutional Amendment 80, 60(A), courts are “established as the trial courts of original jurisdiction of all justifiable matters not otherwise assigned,” and further reads that “any sitting circuit judge may sit in any division.”
“The creation of divisions shall in no way limit the powers and duties of the judges to hear all matters within the jurisdiction of the circuit court,” the amendment reads.
In closing, the brief states that “if the Court were to determine it no longer retained jurisdiction” over the matter, “a dismissal is not warranted ... (and) a transfer to the next available Court or Circuit Clerk would be appropriate.”
Joe Don Winningham, counsel for Johnston, filed a reply to the response on Tuesday afternoon, claiming that counsel would “fall short of his obligation to defend his client if he failed to raise the legitimate issue of the failure to follow the Administrative Plan of the Twentieth Judicial District in (Johnston’s) case.”
Winningham said the administrative plan dictates that all criminal cases within the 20th Judicial District are assigned to either Judge Charles Clawson or Judge David Reynolds, and that neither Clawson nor Reynolds entered an order recusing from the case.
“In particular, Judge Reynolds, who is designated by the Plan to hear criminal cases, was not even given the opportunity to consider the case,” the reply says.
Winningham further claims that judges authorized to hear criminal cases must recuse from the case “before a judge not authorized by the Plan to hear such cases may accept the transfer.”
The reply ends by stating that a transfer of the case is “simply not sufficient to cure the finding of probable cause,” nor for the issuance of a warrant for Johnston’s arrest “without authority.”
Johnston will appear before Judge Wood at 1 p.m. Wednesday in courtroom E.
He was arrested in August for the alleged use of $3,800 in county funds for asphalt work to his driveway.
Johnston has pleaded innocent to the charge.
(Megan Reynolds is a staff writer and can be reached at 505-1277 or by e-mail at megan.reynolds@thecabin.net. To comment on this story and others, visit www.thecabin.net.)
Comments (7)
Add commentThe Law beats a Plan
It is nice that they have adopted a "Plan" but a Law beats out a plan. Winningham should know such material and not waste people's time with useless maneuvers - he must be a lawyer!
The Law beats a Plan
“In the motion filed at Faulkner County Circuit Court by attorney Joe Don Winningham, the defense claims the Juvenile Court and Fifth Division Judge Rhonda Wood cannot preside over the criminal case without violating the Administrative Plan for the Twentieth Judicial District approved this year by the Arkansas Supreme Court.”…….”In the motion’s accompanying brief, Winningham claims the State did not follow the allocation and assignments of the administrative plan, and such “hand picking” of a judge “leaves the impression that the judicial process has been abused.”
It was signed off of by all the judges and approved by the Supreme Court. She just violated a direct order of the Supreme Court and showed what her signature really is worth.
Winningham was doing his job (yes, he's a lawyer, a very good lawyer). She has now opened the whole thing up for an appeal and that could get it all thrown out or overturned at the taxpayers expense...Way to go Judge Wood! All she had to do was recuse and let another judge handle the case. Her pride got injured and she made a big show with the assistance of the snickering Judge Maggio and Prosecutor Hiland.
Um
I mean, I'm no lawyer, but based on your words, the Supreme Court "approved" it. That sounds to me like an administrative plan was presented to help sort out case loads for the judges, and the Supreme Court didn't have a problem with it. But then you go on and say that it was a "direct order" from the Supreme Court, and that that order was violated. So which is it? Did the SC mandate this arrangement, or did they simply look at the plan and say "we don't have any issues with this if this is how you want to do it"?
Supreme Court
My understanding is that the Districts must turn in an Administrative Plan to the SC for approval. The plan is signed by all the judges and then approved by the SC. Judge Wood acted outside the perimeter of the plan the she agreed to without proper procedure being followed. That would be the violation of the direct order.
You don't see the logic...
The way the case should have been handled, in 4th grade terms;
A decision is made to charge someone with a felony by the Prosecutor.
Evidence of the criminal investigation done by law enforcement is then presented to a Circuit Court Judge, seeking an arrest warrant.
If an Administrative plan is placed in the Supreme Court and approved by SC, then that plan is to be followed, in this District, the Administrative plan is fifty percent of the criminal cases goes to Judge Clawson and fifty percent to Judge Reynolds, if those two decide not to be involved (in fancy terms; recuse) or are unavailable to sign said warrant, only then can it go to the other three Judges in this district. It's clear that didn't happen here, Judge Clawson may or may not have been given the opportunity to refuse the signing of the warrant, we do not know this as fact, but let's say that Judge Clawson did. At that time the next step would have been to go to Judge Reynolds, if you are following the Administrative plan(Affects only Faulkner County) in which all prosecutors should be fully aware of and follow the plan, according to the Supreme Court.
The Administrative plan is in place to keep court cases from being appealed and clogging up the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court Justices having to wade through them. And all cases are heard in a prompt (quick) and efficient (well done) manner. A DDA or Docket Division Amendment to an Administrative Plan is filed with the Arkansas Supreme Court In accordance with Supreme Court Administrative Order number 14. Google it or go to courts.Arkansas.gov/rules < also in fourth grade legibility (readable) and it will be explained to you.
I am supposing that with the evidence the prosecutors had to present is why they skipped over Judge
Reynolds and went straight to Wood, a personal friend and rumored to be one of Hiland's supporters.
Mr. Winningham's motion was to dismiss based on the way the warrant was signed and an issue that diverted, veered away from the Administrative plan.
Joe Don Winningham is a exceptional lawyer and works hard for his clients, going the distance for them. He was not wrong in filing this motion on behalf of his client. There wasn't good cause for the prosecutor to take this warrant to The Wood. The Wood, Maggio and Hiland know this, but chose to act like power tripping five year olds instead of professional elected officials.
You do know that this case against Johnston was turned down for prosecution by the Federal Government?
My reply to
Pearlist, above....
@BoddaBingO
I agree with 99.9% of what you said. The only problem lies in your last sentence "You do know that this case against Johnston was turned down for prosecution by the Federal Government?" You see this article, and the pending court case, is about Johnston being prosecuted for the alleged misuse of county funds to pave his driveway. It doesn’t have anything to do with the purchase of the infamous .50 caliber rifle.