State of Ark. Sex Offender Risk Assessment Comm. v. Wallace ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                   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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-13-297

Judges: Kenneth S. Hixson

Filed Date: 1/8/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014