Opinion
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i.../contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/imaging/IMAGES/DMS
Appellant Aaron Michael Lewis appeals an order of the Pulaski County Circuit
Court convicting him of capital murder and kidnapping and sentencing him as a habitual
offender to terms of life imprisonment without parole and life, respectively. For reversal,
Lewis argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions to suppress on five separate
grounds. The State filed a cross-appeal alleging that the circuit court erred in granting
Lewis's motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to two search warrants.
We affirm the
circuit court's denial of his motions to suppress, and we dismiss the cross-appeal.
1. Motion to Suppress AL phone that Swaggerty took at accident scene:
We agree with the circuit court's ruling. Swaggerty knew that Carter had been
missing for three days. He knew that Lewis and his car matched the description of the man
and vehicle seen at the home where Carter had disappeared. He also knew that the TextMe
account had been registered to Lowery. After Lewis was involved in the car accident, the
lieutenant approached him to determine whether he needed medical assistance and to
inquire about his cell phone. The lieutenant's request that Lewis respond to questions about
Carter's disappearance comports with the requirements of Rule 2.2. Thus, we hold that the
circuit court properly denied his motion to suppress.
2. Voice Recording
Because the Arkansas constitution mirrors the federal constitution, and because this court has not been provided
any reason why it should interpret the provisions differently, this court adopts the holding
in Patane. In this instance, we conclude that the recording of the victim was not a
testimonial statement made by Lewis and was admissible into evidence. Thus, we hold that
the circuit court properly denied Lewis's motion to suppress the recorded statement.
3. Subpoenas *Pros Subpoenas used was not addressed at all since AL Fourth Amendment not violated. Def attorney acknowledged this at the oral hearing. Overreach of Pros Subpoena not addressed.
We agree with the circuit court's ruling to deny Lewis's motion to suppress because
he did not have standing to challenge the subpoenas. Like the accused in Hamzy, Lewis
cannot complain that the subpoenas violated his constitutional rights because those
subpoenas were issued to third parties. For these reasons, we cannot say that the court erred
in denying Lewis's motion to suppress.
4. Custodial Statement
We agree with the State's contention that this argument is not preserved. When an
appellant has raised multiple arguments in his motion to suppress, we will refuse to reach
the merits of those arguments that were not specifically ruled on by the trial court in denying
the motion. See Eastin u. State,370 Ark. 10, 257 S.W.3d 58 (2007). Even when an issue
was raised in a written motion to suppress, if it is not developed, either factually or legally,
during the hearing on the motion and the appellant fails to obtain a clear ruling on the issue,
the issue is not preserved. id.,257 S.W.3d 58. Here, the circuit court did not rule specifically
on the issue of any alleged promises of leniency. Thus, the promise-of-leniency argument
advanced by Lewis is not preserved for appellate review. Accordingly, we hold that we are
precluded from addressing Lewis's argument on this point
5. Search of Lewis's Car
Here, Lewis had wrecked his vehicle and had been transported to the hospital. Under
these circumstances, the officers' policies mandated the impoundment of the vehicle and an
inventory of its contents. It is permissible for an officer to impound and inventory a vehicle
when the driver is physically unable to drive the car and when leaving it on the side of the
road would create a safety hazard. Thompson, 333 Ark. 92, 966 S.W.2d 901. From an
objective standpoint, the officer had a legitimate reason to impound the vehicle and
inventory its contents. Further, the inventory search was conducted in accordance with the
officers' established procedures. Thus, we hold that the inventory search was not an
"unreasonable search" under the Fourth Amendment, and we affirm the circuit court's
ruling to deny Lewis's motion to suppress.
State's Cross-Appeal
An appeal from a nunc pro tunc order may challenge only those corrections made in
the nunc pro tunc order; it may not challenge issues in the original order that could have
been appealed earlier. Francis v. Protective Life Ins. Co.,371 Ark. 285,265 S.W.3d 117 (2007).
We have dismissed appeals as untimely when appellans, alter the time lor appealing from
the original order had cxpired, attempted to appeal issues not addressed in or corrected by
the nunc pro tunc order. Irl., 265 S.W.3d 117.
In this instance, the circuit court entered its sentencing order on January 26, 2016,
and entered an amended sentencing order on March 30,2016, making several corrections
to the original January 2016 sentencing order. We conclude that the circuit court's March
30, 2016 order was a nunc pro tunc order, and the State may not challenge issues in the
nunc pro tunc order that could have been appealed earlier. Under our precedent, we must
dismiss the State's cross-appeal as untimely.
