Court Opinion

ID: 9673592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:14:54.645339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:22.928815
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I dissent with amazement at the action of this court in handing down two opinions on the same date holding directly opposite each other. The present case affirms the trial court’s action in accepting a stipulation that the appellant had five prior convictions. At the same moment, we are handing down the opinion in McCroskey v. State reversing and remanding in the same trial court. We reverse and remand McCroskey because the trial judge accepted a stipulation that the appellant had been convicted of a number of previous offenses. We affirm the present case on what are essentially the same facts. Which one will the trial courts be expected to follow? In my opinion, it was error for the trial court to accept the stipulation to the prior convictions without inquiring of the appellant whether he intelligently and voluntarily consented to such stipulation. McCroskey v. State, 272 Ark. 356, (1981); Cox v. Hutto, 589 F. 2d 394 (8th Cir. 1979); Morrow v. State, 271 Ark. 806, 610 S.W. 2d 878 (1981). Also, see Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2330.1 (Repl. 1977). The Arkansas statutes give the appellant the absolute right to a trial by jury on the issue of prior offenses. This statute is certainly on the same level as the rule which prevents the acceptance of a guilty plea without inquiry by the court as to the voluntariness of such plea. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 24.4 and Rule 24.5. To accept a guilty plea without first determining that it was intelligently and voluntarily made has been construed as being reversible error. Byler v. State, 257 Ark. 15, 513 S.W. 2d 801 (1974). There is no way the facts may be arranged to cover up the deficiency in the trial court’s failure to inquire as to the voluntariness of the stipulation. It seems to me that McCroskey is holding that the question is whether the accused voluntarily and intelligently agreed to the stipulation; the holding in the present case is that if there is enough evidence available to support the stipulation, the trial court will be affirmed. I agree with McCroskey and disagree with the majority in the present case.