Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 466
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-26-211
JEDIAH HALEY Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CARROLL
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. EASTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 8ECR-22-191]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE RANDY WRIGHT,
JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Jediah Haley appeals the Carroll County Circuit Court order dismissing his appeal.
We reverse and remand.
I. Relevant Facts
On August 18, 2022, Haley was found guilty of criminal trespass, battery, and
disorderly conduct in Berryville District Court. Haley appealed his conviction to the Carroll
County Circuit Court. The State moved to dismiss his appeal, arguing that Haley failed to
serve the State with a copy of the written request for the record, and no certificate of service
was filed with the district court clerk or was contained in the record. The State argued that
the service and filing requirements of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36(c) are mandatory. The circuit court granted the State’s motion and found that Haley had not
complied with the Rule 36(c) service requirement.
Haley appealed, and this court reversed the circuit court’s ruling. We held that Haley’s
timely filing of the certified district court record in the circuit court and payment of the
required fees was sufficient to perfect his appeal from his convictions and avoid dismissal.
Haley v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 484, 725 S.W.3d 237 (third-degree battery, No. 08ECR-199);
Haley v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 485 (criminal trespass, No. 08ECR-22-191); Haley v. State,
2025 Ark. App. 492 (No. 08ECR-22-207, disorderly conduct). We remanded the cases for
the circuit court to rule in accordance with that holding.
Before the remand hearing on December 1, 2025, the State moved to dismiss the
appeals and seal the misdemeanor convictions pursuant to Act 1460 of 2013, codified at
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-90-1401 et seq. (Repl. 2016 & Supp. 2025). The State contended that
Haley served thirty days in jail, as sentenced, and his fines and costs were satisfied by his jail
stay.
At the December 1 hearing, the State reiterated that Haley had served the sentence
imposed by the district court and moved to dismiss the appeal and seal the record. Haley
responded that he did not want his appeal dismissed. The court stated that
based on the mandate from the court of appeals, you’re not guilty of those matters,
all right? And so the State has moved to dismiss the charges against you, and they’re
the only ones that get to bring actions for prosecution in the State of Arkansas. So as
a result of them moving to dismiss, I – you – you – don’t have a right to object to it.
2
Haley argued that the State could not dismiss his right to a trial; however, the circuit
court dismissed his appeals and sealed Haley’s convictions. The court found that Haley had
completed his sentences, and his fines and costs were satisfied by his incarceration.
On December 12, Haley moved to reconsider the dismissal of the criminal-trespass
appeal, 08CR-22-19, mistakenly believing it was the battery conviction. He asserted that the
court could not seal his battery conviction for five years under section 16-90-1401. He also
argued that the dismissal of his appeal from district court violated his right to a trial in circuit
court.
On December 30, Haley moved to set aside the order of dismissal in case Nos.
08ECR-22-191 (criminal trespass), 08ECR-22-199 (battery), and 08ECR-22-207 (disorderly
conduct) and reinstate his appeal. He argued that serving his thirty-day sentence did not
render his appeal moot.
On February 23, 2026, the court held hearing on Haley’s motion to reinstate his
appeal in case No. 08ECR-22-191. The court informed Haley that the conviction he had
appealed from was for criminal trespass. Haley continued to argue that his battery conviction
could not be sealed for five years pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1401, and a court was
not permitted to dismiss an appeal for time served.1 The motion to reinstate the appeal was
denied.
1
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-1405 (b)(1)(B) provides that there is no limit to the number of times a person may file a petition to seal his or her record of a misdemeanor or violation, except that the person may not file a petition to seal certain criminal offenses, including third-degree battery, for a period of five years past the completion of the sentence.
3
II. Discussion
On appeal, Haley contends that the circuit court erred when it granted the State’s
request to dismiss the appeal because he had served his district court sentence. Haley
contends that pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36(g), he has a right to a
jury trial because he properly appealed from district court to circuit court, and he did not
waive his right to a jury trial. He argues that his appeal is not moot because his convictions
remain until they are overturned, and there are consequences to having even an expunged
criminal record under certain circumstances. Moreover, he contends the court erroneously
relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-1401, because that statute deals with sealing convictions
and does not include language regarding nolle prosequi or acquittal.
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36(a) provides that a person convicted of a
criminal offense in a district court may appeal the judgment of conviction to the circuit court
for the judicial district in which the conviction occurred.
A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal
effect upon a then-existing controversy; however, the mootness doctrine does not bar a direct
appeal from a misdemeanor conviction even when the appellant had already served his
sentence. See Thompson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 158, at 3, 516 S.W.3d 297, 299.
As we held in the previous Haley cases, Haley perfected his appeal to circuit court.
Also, he correctly states that he did not waive his appeal, and his appeal is not moot.
4
The State concedes error, stating that Haley is correct that the circuit court erred by
dismissing his appeal from the district court because he had served his sentence. The State
agrees with Haley that he has a right to a direct appeal of a criminal conviction. We agree
and reverse and remand for proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and ABRAMSON, J., agree.
Dusti Standridge, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5