Court Opinion

ID: 9653122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:39:11.379957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.477619
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result but not with the treatment of the prior conviction. David pleaded guilty to the crime of forgery; the plea was accepted but the court suspended imposition of a sentence. The majority holds that that is not a conviction but may be used for impeachment purposes under Rule 609. I find it is a conviction. The purpose of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1201 is to allow expungement or a clean record for persons worthy of suspension or probation. See Commentary to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1201. To fulfill that purpose the statute prohibits a judge from entering a judgment of conviction under certain circumstances. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1201 (3). The statute does not purport to determine what is and what is not a conviction for all purposes. See e.g. Finley v. State, 282 Ark. 146, 666 S.W.2d 701 (1981), which holds that a determination , that a persons committed a felony is a conviction under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-3103 (Repl. 1977). The question before us is whether this is a conviction for purposes of Rule 609. It undoubtedly is since provision is made in the rules to prevent the use of convictions which have been the subject of pardons, annulments or certificates of rehabilitation. See Unif. R. Evid. 609(c). The conviction in this case has not been expunged so it remains one for purposes of impeachment.