Holt v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 662 S.W.2d 822,281 Ark. 210 |
| Parties | Doyle D. HOLT, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 83-114. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lessenberry & Carpenter by Thomas M. Carpenter, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Alice Ann Burns, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Sebastian County Circuit Court's refusal to grant appellant's petition for Rule 37 relief. We find no prejudicial error in the record.
Appellant timely filed a petition for relief pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. 37.1 in which he alleged the trial court failed to ascertain a factual basis for appellant's guilty plea. He also alleged that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him for offenses which did not occur in the State of Arkansas and that trial counsel was ineffective in defending him.
The trial court denied appellant's petition without a hearing. The record reveals the trial court considered matters discussed at the plea and sentencing hearing and also matters discussed at an earlier pre-trial hearing.
The record reveals the trial court informed appellant of the nature of each charge, of the minimum and maximum sentences possible, that a guilty plea terminated his right to a jury trial, and of other consequences of his plea. The appellant affirmatively acknowledged he understood all the ramifications of his guilty plea. The record of the sentencing proceeding does not show that the state proved the crimes were committed in Arkansas. The information alleges the crimes were committed in the Greenwood district of Sebastian County, Arkansas.
The record clearly reveals appellant was aware of the nature of the offenses charged and of the possible penalties. He stated he understood all the consequences of a guilty plea. A collateral attack on a guilty plea does not reach the merits of a claim of deprivation of constitutional rights prior to entry of the plea. Horn v. State, 254 Ark. 651, 495 S.W.2d 152 (1973). If the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered and was not the result of ineffective assistance of counsel, it is final and binding unless the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Irons v. State, 267 Ark. 469, 591 S.W.2d 650 (1980).
The only serious question presented in this appeal is that of jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction the judgments would be void and therefore subject to collateral attack even beyond the three year limit on other Rule 37 petitions. However, conclusory allegations are insufficient to place the matter in issue. Bosnick v. State, 275 Ark. 52, 627 S.W.2d 23 (1982). The facts clearly establish that the offenses of possession of a prohibited weapon and felon in possession of a firearm occurred in appellant's home in Arkansas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wedgeworth v. State
...petitioner under the facts of his or her case. Crain, 2012 Ark. 412; Wells v. State, 2012 Ark. 308 (per curiam); see Holt v. State, 281 Ark. 210, 662 S.W.2d 822 (1984). The last allegation raised by appellant in his petition was the claim that counsel should have talked to the prosecution "......
- State v. NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Co.
-
Crain v. State
...to a particular petitioner under the facts of his or her case. See Wells v. State, 2012 Ark. 375 (per curiam); see also Holt v. State, 281 Ark. 210, 662 S.W.2d 822 (1984). Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the judgment in his case should be vacated under Criminal Proce......
-
Wells v. State
...to demonstrate that a fundamental right was denied to a particular petitioner under the facts of his or her case. See Holt v State, 281 Ark. 210, 662 S.W.2d 822 (1984). Appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that his plea should be vacated under Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. App......