# Singleton v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 26, 1981 · 274 Ark. 126

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775266

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles Laverne SINGLETON v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 26, 1981
- **Citations:** 274 Ark. 126; 623 S.W.2d 180; 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1439
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hickman
- **Judges:** Adkisson, Hickman, Dudley
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775266

## Opinion text

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent to the majority’s holding which recognizes an error raised for the first time on appeal.
First, the error can hardly be described as prejudicial requiring our action. The defendant was sentenced to die and we affirmed that sentence. The defendant will be hard pressed to understand how we find prejudicial error and ignore the obvious — he gets no relief.
Next, the mere fact we would act on a petition for Rule 37 relief is presumptive and premature. We should only act when and if we are confronted with that reality. Appellate courts should not act on their own by recognizing errors not argued below. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 , 606 S.W. 2d 366 (1980).
The reasons are manifold — a systematic orderly review that can be relied upon; fairness to all parties; fairness to the trial court; only answering questions properly before us. It is a recognition of our proper role in a judicial system.
I find no reason in this case to depart from past practice.
Dudley, J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9775266. Public record. Not legal advice.