Page:Walls v. State (2000).pdf/7

Rh presume prejudice on the part of the trial judge. Wilson v. Neal, supra. On the contrary, we presume that the trial judge is impartial. Id. In the instant case, mere suspicion or conjecture that the judge's heart and mind were so tainted by events that occurred more than a year earlier that he could not view the matter afresh on remand is not enough. We take as a given that a judge is able to preside over a matter on remand with a clean slate, absent proof or some indication to the contrary The record in this matter simply does not support Walls's contention that Judge Hanshaw was biased towards him at the resentencing. For all of these reasons, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to recuse in this matter.

[7, 8] There are two other issues raised by Walls for reversal. The first is that Judge Hanshaw's failure to recuse for all the reasons already stated violated his due process rights. Walls, however, failed to obtain a ruling on this point from the trial judge and, thus, has waived the issue for purposes of appeal. Newman v. State, 327 Ark. 339, 939 S.W2d 811 (1997). Furthermore, Walls cites us to no authority in support of his constitutional argument. He simply makes the bald statement that his due process rights have been violated. That conclusory statement is not enough, and this court will not develop the constitutional issue for him. Ayers v. State, 334 Ark. 258, 975 S.W.2d 88 (1998).

[9] Walls finally contends that he should be able to withdraw his guilty and nolo contendere pleas due to bias on Judge Hanshaw's part, because that equates to manifest injustice under Ark. R. Crim. P. 26(a)(1). Again, Walls presents this court with no convincing authority to support the contention that Judge Hanshaw abused his discretion in disallowing a withdrawal of his pleas. Ayers v. State, supra. And because we hold that there was no proof of bias so as to warrant recusal, Walls's argument of manifest injustice is substantially undercut.

The record has been reviewed in his case for other reversible error pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h), and none has been found.

Affirmed.