Court Opinion

ID: 9758687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:40:15.541892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:53.972519
License: Public Domain

John E. JENNINGS, Judge, concurring. I agree with the majority’s decision to grant rehearing and with its disposition of the case on the merits. I concur separately for two reasons. First, we need not, and cannot, decide whether the prosecutor’s mere presence at the hearing on the guilty plea is enough to establish her consent to the conditional nature of the plea. In the case at bar it is clear that the circuit judge discussed the fact that the plea was conditional. The prosecuting attorney was not only present but made a recommendation as to an appeal bond. Second, the appellant’s criticism of the original panel’s decision to raise the issue of the validity of the conditional plea sua sponte is unfounded. While I generally oppose the raising of issues on our own motion,1 this situation is clearly an exception. Absent strict compliance with Rule 24.3, we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a guilty plea. Ray v. State, 328 Ark. 176, 941 S.W.2d 427 (1997); Simmons v. State, 72 Ark. App. 238, 34 S.W.3d 768 (2000). When the question is one that goes to our own jurisdiction, we have not only the right but the duty to raise it on our own motion. State v. Gray, 319 Ark. 356, 891 S.W.2d 376 (1995).   See my dissent in In re Estate of Puddy v. Gillam, 30 Ark. App. 238, 778 S.W.2d 957 (1990).