Tabor v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Tabor v. State

918 S.W.2d 189, 52 Ark. App. 251, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 13, 1996

DocketCA CR 95-1017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 918 S.W.2d 189 (Tabor v. State) 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.

Bluebook

Tabor v. State, 918 S.W.2d 189, 52 Ark. App. 251, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 150 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.

Appellant has moved that his appeal be reinstated. We dismissed the appeal in an order dated January 17, 1996, pursuant to the motion of appellee contending that jurisdiction is lacking because the record does not show that the requirements were met for reserving the right to appeal an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In its response to appellant’s petition to reinstate the appeal, appellee asserts that the parties have entered into a stipulation for supplementation of the record concerning appellant’s intention to conditionally plead guilty and reserve his right to appeal the adverse determination of the pretrial motion to suppress evidence. However, the joint stipulation before us was filed on January 29, 1996. Neither party has tendered anything from the trial court that shows that it approved appellant’s conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 24.3(b).

In order that the complete record on this issue can be presented to us, we hereby remand this matter to the trial court and direct that the record be settled regarding appellant’s purported conditional plea of guilty. The trial court and parties are further directed to ensure that all material portions of the record that pertain to the purported conditional plea of guilty be included in the record, including all orders by the trial court pertaining to appellant’s claim that he entered a conditional plea of guilty. Upon compliance with these directives, the motion for reinstatement of the appeal may be renewed.

Remanded.

Stroud and Neal, JJ., agree. Mayfield and Cooper, JJ., concur. Rogers, Pittman, Robbins, JJ., and Jennings, C.J., dissent.

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

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.

Appellant has moved that his appeal be reinstated. We dismissed the appeal in an order dated January 17, 1996, pursuant to the motion of appellee contending that jurisdiction is lacking because the record does not show that the requirements were met for reserving the right to appeal an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence under Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

In its response to appellant’s petition to reinstate the appeal, appellee asserts that the parties have entered into a stipulation for supplementation of the record concerning appellant’s intention to conditionally plead guilty and reserve his right to appeal the adverse determination of the pretrial motion to suppress evidence. However, the joint stipulation before us was filed on January 29, 1996. Neither party has tendered anything from the trial court that shows that it approved appellant’s conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 24.3(b).

In order that the complete record on this issue can be presented to us, we hereby remand this matter to the trial court and direct that the record be settled regarding appellant’s purported conditional plea of guilty. The trial court and parties are further directed to ensure that all material portions of the record that pertain to the purported conditional plea of guilty be included in the record, including all orders by the trial court pertaining to appellant’s claim that he entered a conditional plea of guilty. Upon compliance with these directives, the motion for reinstatement of the appeal may be renewed.

Remanded.

Stroud and Neal, JJ., agree. Mayfield and Cooper, JJ., concur. Rogers, Pittman, Robbins, JJ., and Jennings, C.J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 S.W.2d 189, 52 Ark. App. 251, 1996 Ark. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tabor-v-state-arkctapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack