 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maughn v. State9/17/2003
vey appellate jurisdiction, and if the express terms of the rule are not complied with, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conditional plea. Id.; McMullen v. State, 79 Ark. App. 15, 82 S.W.3d 827 (2002).
In Payne v. State, supra, the appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty to DWI, fourth offense, and attempted to appeal the trial court's ruling admitting his prior DWI convictions into evidence. The supreme court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Rule 24.3(b) permits review of conditional guilty pleas solely with respect to adverse rulings on motions to suppress illegally obtained evidence and that it does not apply to evidence that is alleged to have been wrongfully admitted. Id.; see also Pickett v. State, 301 Ark. 345, 783 S.W.2d 854 (1990); Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20, 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989) (both holding that Rule 24.3(b) does not apply where the issue on appeal concerns the admissibility of evidence not alleged to have been illegally obtained).
In this case, Maughn does not allege that his blood-test results were illegally obtained; rather, he argues that the test results were wrongfully admitted into evidence. Because Rule 24.3(b) does not provide for an appeal following a plea of nolo contendere where the admissibility of evidence is challenged, this appeal must be dismissed.
Although the State does not raise this argument, there is a second issue pertaining to this court's jurisdiction to hear Maughn's appeal under Rule 24.3(b). There is no plea statement or other document in the record in which Maughn reserved in writing his right to appeal the denial of his motion in limine. In the absence of a contemporaneous writing by the defendant reserving his right to an appeal, there is no compliance with Rule 24.3(b), and the appellate court does not obtain jurisdiction. Tabor v. State, 326 Ark. 51, 930 S.W.2d 319 (1996). This is true even where there has been an attempt to enter a conditional plea below, as occurred in this case. Barnett v. State, 336 Ark. 165, 984 S.W.2d 444 (1999). Thus, even if Rule 24.3(b) were applicable to Maughn's appeal from the denial of his motion in limine, Maughn's failure to properly preserve his conditional guilty plea in writing precludes this court from having jurisdiction of the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Hart and Crabtree, JJ., agree.
|