James E. Ricks, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
This text of 2023 Ark. App. 437 (James E. Ricks, Jr. v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 437 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-22-291
Opinion Delivered October 4, 2023
JAMES E. RICKS, JR. APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 01SCR-18-23]
HONORABLE DONNA GALLOWAY, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE DISMISSED
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
Appellant James Ricks, Jr., pro se, appeals from his guilty plea entered in the Arkansas
County Circuit Court, alleging that the court erred by failing to rule upon his pending
motion to dismiss prior to his guilty plea and for not allowing him to withdraw his
involuntary guilty plea. We dismiss Rick’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 9, 2018, the State charged Ricks as a habitual offender with one count
each of first-degree battery, possession of a firearm by certain persons, and theft by receiving
a firearm worth less than $2,500 for conduct that occurred on January 19, 2018. Ricks was
appointed a public defender on March 28, 2018, and a jury trial was set for May 24, 2018.
On August 6, 2018, Ricks alleged he filed a pro se motion to dismiss, although an
attorney represented him. The court did not rule on the motion. However, in reading the motion, it did not allege a speedy-trial violation that was cognizable. Instead, it merely
claimed, “It’s evident that rescheduled court dates and prolonged excuses has the
prosecution in doubt.” Thereafter, Ricks successfully moved to continue the trial no less
than seven times. Various other continuances were granted—including on the State’s
motion, sua sponte by the circuit court, and by order of the Arkansas Supreme Court—and
the trial was eventually continued to May 17, 2021.
Ricks claims that on the morning of the trial, he appeared before the circuit court
and raised the issue of his motion to dismiss not having been ruled on, and further claims
the court refused to entertain his motion. Ricks then entered his guilty plea, with full
knowledge that his motion had not been ruled on. The judgment and sentencing order was
entered three days later on May 20, 2021.
On July 7, 2021, Ricks moved to withdraw his plea, alleging it was involuntary because
the circuit court had not ruled on his motion to dismiss he alleges he filed on February 14,
2019.1 The court denied his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty on September 23, 2022.
Ricks filed a timely appeal.
Ricks argues that the court refused to rule on his motion to dismiss the morning of
the trial, and because the court refused to rule on his motion, his plea was not voluntary.
Ricks further argues that because his plea was not voluntary, the circuit court erred in
1 A motion to dismiss is not found in the record for February 14, 2019, although there is a criminal docket notation that one was filed.
2 denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. However, this court will not reach the merits
of his argument because his motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not timely.
Rule 26.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure gives a defendant the right to
withdraw his guilty plea. However, the defendant must do so before sentencing or entry of
judgment. Seek v. State, 330 Ark. 833, 957 S.W.2d 709 (1997); Webb v. State, 365 Ark. 22,
24, 223 S.W.3d 796, 798 (2006). Ricks did not file his motion until three days after the
judgment and commitment order had been entered, making it untimely. When a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea is untimely, we review it on appeal as a motion for postconviction
relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. Webb, supra. However, this court has
held, pursuant to Rule 37, that a postconviction-relief petition must be verified. Shaw v.
State, 363 Ark. 156, 211 S.W.3d 506 (2005) (per curiam). The verification requirement for
a postconviction petition is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Moytoy v. State,
2021 Ark. App. 170, at 2. Ricks did not verify his petition to withdraw his guilty plea filed
after the entry of the judgment and commitment order. Without a valid petition for
postconviction relief, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear appellant's argument. Id.
When the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Id.
Dismissed.
THYER and WOOD, JJ., agree.
James E. Ricks, Jr., pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walker K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2023 Ark. App. 437, 676 S.W.3d 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-e-ricks-jr-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2023.