Carter v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Carter v. State

685 S.W.2d 812, 285 Ark. 256, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1877

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 18, 1985

DocketCR 84-163

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 685 S.W.2d 812 (Carter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. State, 685 S.W.2d 812, 285 Ark. 256, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1877 (Ark. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Barry Carter, through his attorney, negotiated a plea of guilty to a first degree murder charge for a sentence of 40 years imprisonment, consecutive with one he was serving. Thirteen days later, with new counsel, Carter sought to set aside the plea and sentence. The ground for the motion was essentially mental incompetence. The trial judge, noting a review of the record, denied the motion without a hearing.

On appeal it is argued that the court should have held a hearing before acting, and, further, the motion should have been granted. It was filed pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 26.1, which provides that a plea may be withdrawn upon a timely motion to correct a manifest injustice. The motion was meritless as a matter of law because it must be made prior to sentencing. Rawls v. State, 264 Ark. 954, 581 S.W.2d 311 (1979); A.R.Cr.P. Rule 26.1 (e).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Barry Carter, through his attorney, negotiated a plea of guilty to a first degree murder charge for a sentence of 40 years imprisonment, consecutive with one he was serving. Thirteen days later, with new counsel, Carter sought to set aside the plea and sentence. The ground for the motion was essentially mental incompetence. The trial judge, noting a review of the record, denied the motion without a hearing.

On appeal it is argued that the court should have held a hearing before acting, and, further, the motion should have been granted. It was filed pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 26.1, which provides that a plea may be withdrawn upon a timely motion to correct a manifest injustice. The motion was meritless as a matter of law because it must be made prior to sentencing. Rawls v. State, 264 Ark. 954, 581 S.W.2d 311 (1979); A.R.Cr.P. Rule 26.1 (e).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 S.W.2d 812, 285 Ark. 256, 1985 Ark. LEXIS 1877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-ark-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack