Court Opinion

ID: 9769184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:37:11.991722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:57.145120
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I join this majority, but write to mention that the abstract of record shows the appellants never pled guilty thinking they later would be granted a “hardship parole.” First, at the plea hearing, appellant Dixie Cranford inquired of the court whether she would be given early parole because of her seventy-year-old mother and three children. She then clearly acknowledged that “she understood that parole is the prerogative of the executive branch of the Arkansas State Government.” Second, at the Rule 37 hearing, appellant Gary Cranford testified, “I believed there was a good chance I was going to have to serve nine years of the eighteen-year sentence on the day I entered the plea.” The appellants’ own testimony noted above belies their present argument that the trial court pushed the “hardship parole” and “early release” issue when receiving their guilty pleas. The record reflects the appellants knew the court could not assure them of an early parole, nor did they expect one. The state’s proof was strong, and appellants were aware they could get forty years on each count of rape. Appellants’ counsel skillfully negotiated appellants an eighteen-year sentence. Thus, even if the record showed counsel had incorrectly assured appellants that they could obtain an early release, it cannot be said, considering the state’s compelling evidence and the nature of the crimes, that going to trial would have objectively been the better course of action. See Tran v. Lockhart, 849 F.2d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1091, 109 S.Ct. 1561, 863 L.Ed.2d 863 (1989). For the above reasons, as well as those presented in the majority opinion, I affirm.