Court Opinion

ID: 9756399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:27:03.453644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:21.544693
License: Public Domain

David M. Glover, Judge, concurring. I concur in the udge, because existing case law appears to leave us no room to decide otherwise. These are the same words chosen by Judge Wendell L. Griffen in his 2003 concurrence in a case involving a similarly unsuccessful attempt to enter a conditional guilty plea under Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 24.3(b).1 His suggestion then was for a model form that trial courts, prosecutors, and defense counsel can use when defendants indicate that they want to enter conditional guilty pleas. This case again vividly illustrates why such a uniform conditional guilty plea form should be adopted. I suggest that this issue is worthy of consideration by the supreme court’s committee on criminal practice. Otherwise we will continue, by mandate, to routinely dismiss cases under Rule 24.3(b) simply because one hoop was not jumped through, even though it is apparent that all parties meant for appellant to enter a conditional plea.   Hill v. State, 81 Ark. App. 178,100 S.W.3d 84 (2003).