 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stroud v. State12/3/2003
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The judgment was signed by the circuit judge on October 29, 2002, and approved by both appellant's attorney and the prosecuting attorney.
In McMullen v. State, 79 Ark. App. 15, 16-17, 82 S.W.3d 827, ___ (2002), this court held:
The supreme court has interpreted Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b) to require strict compliance with the writing requirement in order for the appellate court to obtain jurisdiction. This includes a requirement that the conditional plea be reserved in writing by the defendant. Absent compliance with the express terms of Rule 24.3(b), this court acquires no jurisdiction to hear an appeal, even when there has been an attempt at trial to enter a conditional plea.
(Citations omitted.) Furthermore, the writing must be contemporaneous with the defendant's reservation of his right to appeal, and there must be an indication that the prosecuting attorney consented to the conditional plea and that the trial court approved the conditional plea. Hill v. State, 81 Ark. App. 178, 100 S.W.3d 84.
In the present case, there is nothing in the record from the appellant reserving in writing his conditional guilty plea. See McMullen v. State, supra. The judgment was not signed by the appellant, and as pointed out by the State, if the judgment is considered to be "the writing," it was not contemporaneous with appellant's attempted reservation of his right to appeal. See Barnett v. State, 336 Ark. 165, 984 S.W.2d 444 (1999).
In Grupa v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (November 12, 2003), this court dismissed an appeal on the basis that appellant failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 24.3(b). In that case, the appellant entered conditional pleas of guilty on September 10, 2002, with the approval of the trial judge and the consent of the prosecutor; the order reflecting that agreement was signed by the trial judge on September 16, 2002; and the order was filed on September 20, 2002. In dismissing the appeal, this court held:
Even though there was a writing, specifically reserving the right to appeal the suppression issue, signed by the judge and the attorneys for each side, commemorating the oral entry of guilty pleas reserving this right six days earlier, we glean from the cases on this subject that the writing was not "contemporaneous."
___ Ark. App. at ___, ___ S.W.3d at ___.
Because appellant failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 24.3(b), we must dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. However, we note that appellant's conviction would have still been affirmed if we had been able to reach the merits of his appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Gladwin and Baker, JJ., agree.
|