McDonald v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

McDonald v. State

680 S.W.2d 703, 284 Ark. 201

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 10, 1984

DocketCR 84-103

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 680 S.W.2d 703 (McDonald 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

McDonald v. State, 680 S.W.2d 703, 284 Ark. 201 (Ark. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

In a trial to the court, the appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property. Next, the court found that appellant previously had been convicted of more than one, but less than four, felonies and imposed enhanced sentences of forty and five years. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001 (Repl. 1977 and Supp. 1983). Appellant contends that the trial court committed error in considering, for enhancement purposes, a prior conviction in which the state did not prove that appellant had been represented by counsel.

At trial, the court asked appellant’s counsel, “Is there any contention that he wasn’t represented by counsel at any of these convictions?” Counsel replied, “No, Your Honor. I think the only contention that we would have is that some of these are awfully old.” Having failed to raise the issue below, the point is waived, and cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. Hefley v. State, 281 Ark. 324, 663 S.W.2d 732 (1984).

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

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

In a trial to the court, the appellant was found guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property. Next, the court found that appellant previously had been convicted of more than one, but less than four, felonies and imposed enhanced sentences of forty and five years. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1001 (Repl. 1977 and Supp. 1983). Appellant contends that the trial court committed error in considering, for enhancement purposes, a prior conviction in which the state did not prove that appellant had been represented by counsel.

At trial, the court asked appellant’s counsel, “Is there any contention that he wasn’t represented by counsel at any of these convictions?” Counsel replied, “No, Your Honor. I think the only contention that we would have is that some of these are awfully old.” Having failed to raise the issue below, the point is waived, and cannot be considered for the first time on appeal. Hefley v. State, 281 Ark. 324, 663 S.W.2d 732 (1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 S.W.2d 703, 284 Ark. 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdonald-v-state-ark-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack