Wright v. State , 2016 Ark. 5 ( 2016 )

Menu:

                                      Cite as

2016 Ark. 5

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No.   CR-15-862
Opinion Delivered January   7, 2016
JAMES BRIAN WRIGHT
PETITIONER
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL
V.                                                OF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
[SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
STATE OF ARKANSAS                                 FORT SMITH DISTRICT, NO. 66CR-10-882]
RESPONDENT
MOTION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
On March 28, 2011, judgment was entered in the Sebastian County Circuit Court
reflecting that James Brian Wright had entered a plea of guilty to two counts of forgery in case
no. 66CR-10-882. An aggregate sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment was imposed.
On October 22, 2015, Wright tendered to this court a certified copy of the 2011
judgment with his pro se motion for leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment.
The motion is dismissed because it was not timely tendered to this court and because the
judgment was entered on a plea of guilty.
Belated appeals in criminal cases are governed by Rule 2(e) of the Arkansas Rules of
Appellate Procedure–Criminal (2015). The rule provides in pertinent part that “no motion
for belated appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless application has been made
to the Supreme Court within eighteen (18) months of the date of entry of judgment or entry
of the order denying postconviction relief from which the appeal is taken.” Wright filed his
motion more than eighteen months after the judgment had been entered. Wright argues that
Cite as

2016 Ark. 5

he should be allowed to appeal because his attorney erred by not appealing the judgment, but
the eighteen-month period applies even to cases where the attorney admits fault for not
pursuing an appeal from an appealable judgment. See Bennett v. State,

362 Ark. 411

208 S.W.3d 775

(2005) (per curiam).
Moreover, even if the motion had been timely filed, Arkansas Rule of Appellate
Procedure–Criminal 1(a) (2015) provides that there is no direct appeal from a plea of guilty.
An exception is created when a conditional plea of guilty is premised on an appeal of the denial
of a suppression motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3 (2015). See
Seibs v. State,

357 Ark. 331

166 S.W.3d 16

(2004); see also Gooch v. State,

2015 Ark. 227

463 S.W.3d 296

.
Two additional exceptions to the general rule, as set out in Seibs and Grissom v. State,

2009 Ark. 328

(per curiam), are (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence
presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself and (2) when the
appeal is from a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. See
Bradford v. State,

351 Ark. 394

94 S.W.3d 904

(2003). Absent one of the exceptions, a
defendant waives his right to appeal when he pleads guilty. Nelson v. State,

2012 Ark. 217

(per
curiam); Smith v. State,

2011 Ark. 54

(per curiam); Grissom,

2009 Ark. 328

; see also Berry v. City of
Fayetteville,

354 Ark. 470

125 S.W.3d 171

(2003); Barnett v. State,

336 Ark. 165

984 S.W.2d 444

(1999). We have held, however, that an appeal may be taken after a guilty plea when the
petitioner alleges evidentiary errors that arose after the plea and during the sentencing phase,
regardless of whether a jury was impaneled for that phase of trial. See Griffin v. State,

2015 Ark. 340

, ___ S.W.3d ___. Wright does not contend that his plea was conditional or that it
Cite as

2016 Ark. 5

otherwise met any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal from the judgment. For
that reason, his motion for belated appeal would have been subject to dismissal had it been
tendered within the time limitations of Rule 2(a). See Nelson,

2012 Ark. 217