Opinion

State of Ark. Sex Offender Risk Assessment Comm. v. Wallace

  • 2014 Ark. App. 18
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Jan 8, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Kenneth S. Hixson
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.0%

The opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 18

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISIONS I & IV

No. CV-13-297

Opinion Delivered January 8, 2014

STATE OF ARKANSAS SEX

OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND

COMMITTEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLANT [NO. CV-11-58-1]

V. HONORABLE JOHN HOMER

WRIGHT, JUDGE

MICHAEL G. WALLACE SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON

APPELLEE DENIAL OF REHEARING

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

In his petition for rehearing, appellee Michael G. Wallace contends that our opinion

in State of Arkansas Sex Offender Risk Assessment Committee v. Wallace, 2013 Ark. App. 654,

contains errors of law or fact requiring rehearing. In that opinion, we affirmed the agency’s

decision to assess Wallace at a Level 2 notification to the public, reversing the circuit court’s

order setting the public notification at Level 1.

We deny Wallace’s petition for rehearing to the extent that Wallace reargues

the substantiality of evidence to support the agency decision, which we have heretofore

considered and rejected. This is not a valid basis to support rehearing, as stated in Ark. Sup.

Ct. R. 2-3(g) (2013).

Wallace’s petition for rehearing also contends that we ignored and failed to address

whether the agency decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” We deny Wallace’s petition on

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 18

this basis as well, although we provide this supplemental opinion upon denial of Wallace’s

petition to clarify our holding. See Huth v. Div. of Soc. Servs. of Dep’t of Human Servs., 287

Ark. 294, 700 S.W.2d 367 (1985). In short, we need not decide whether the agency’s action

was arbitrary and capricious because it automatically follows that where substantial evidence

is found, a decision cannot be classified as unreasonable or arbitrary. See Wright v. Ark. State

Plant Bd., 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992); Capitol Zoning Dist. Comm’n v. Cowan, 2012

Ark. App. 619, S.W.3d ; Lamar Co. v. Ark. State Highway & Transp. Dep’t, 2011 Ark.

App. 695, 386 S.W.3d 670.

Petition for rehearing denied.

WALMSLEY, HARRISON, GRUBER, WHITEAKER, and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Amy L. Ford, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellant.

Hurst, Morrissey & Hurst, PLLC, by: Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr., for appellee.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.