CHRISTOPHER DUVALL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: CR-25-12
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 435 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-12

CHRISTOPHER DUVALL Opinion Delivered September 24, 2025

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 58CR-23-438]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JAMES DUHNAM, APPELLEE JUDGE

DISMISSED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Christopher Duvall pleaded guilty to a charge of second-degree sexual assault, a Class

B felony. Upon the circuit court’s acceptance of his plea, the State moved to dismiss count

two, a charge of sexual indecency with a child, a Class D felony. At the sentencing hearing,

Duvall requested 60 months’ incarceration with an additional 60 months’ suspended

imposition of sentence (SIS). The circuit court sentenced to Duvall to 180 months’

incarceration in the Arkansas Division of Correction (ADC) with an additional 60 months’

SIS and a $2,500 fine. Duvall appeals, alleging that the circuit court abused its discretion in

imposing a higher sentence than Duvall requested. The State responded that Duvall’s appeal

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On June 7, 2023, the State charged Duvall with one count of second-degree sexual

assault against MC, a Class B felony; and one count of sexual indecency with a child, a Class D felony. Duvall agreed to plead guilty to the second-degree sexual-assault charge. At his

change-of-plea hearing, the circuit court informed Duvall of the maximum sentence he could

receive. Duvall and the State did not have a plea agreement other than the dismissal of the

charge of sexual indecency with a child. The circuit court told Duvall that it could impose

any sentence within the range of punishment provided by statute. Duvall attested that he

understood. Duvall also testified that he understood he was giving up his right to an appeal

by pleading guilty to the charge.

Following Duvall’s plea, Duvall requested 60 months’ incarceration in the ADC

followed by 60 months’ SIS. Duvall further agreed to never reside within twenty-five miles

of MC. Duvall did not call any witnesses but did ask for leniency because he had accepted

responsibility for his actions. Duvall also requested that the circuit court consider that his

father was present in the courtroom and could have testified. The circuit court then

sentenced Duvall to 180 months’ incarceration in the ADC followed by 60 months’ SIS.

Duvall did not object to the sentence at the time of the hearing and did not note any reason

why the hearing should not be adjourned.

We need not reach the merits of this case because Duvall waived his rights to appeal

when he pleaded guilty. In Wright v. State, 2016 Ark. 5, our supreme court reiterated that

Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 1(a) (2016) provides that there is no direct

appeal from a plea of guilty. There are three exceptions to this rule, but none apply. The first

exception is the one provided by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b), which allows

a defendant to enter a conditional plea of guilty premised on the appeal of the denial of a

2 suppression motion. The second is when the appeal concerns a posttrial motion challenging

the validity and legality of the sentence itself. Smalley v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 221, at 2–3.

This is not an appeal from a conditional plea or a posttrial motion. This brings us to the

third exception, which is when there is some alleged error that occurred as part of the

sentencing proceeding, when that proceeding took place separate and apart from the plea

itself. Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003). Our supreme court has clearly

held that this exception does not extend to reviewing “the imposition of sentence simply

where the defendant maintains his sentence is excessive, when in fact his sentence is within

the range prescribed by statute for the offense in question.” Hill v. State, 318 Ark. 408, 414,

887 S.W.2d 275, 278 (1994). Duvall concedes that his sentence is legal and within statutory

limits.

Accordingly, we hold that Duvall’s appeal does not fall into any of the recognized

exceptions to the general rule that no appeal may be taken from a guilty plea. The State’s

request to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is granted.

Dismissed.

THYER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Trent D. Thomas, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.