{
  "id": 1885503,
  "name": "Mitchell Dewayne JENKINS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jenkins v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-18",
  "docket_number": "CR 89-217",
  "first_page": "20",
  "last_page": "22",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 Ark. 20"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "781 S.W.2d 461"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756134
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0817-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3394,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.927,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.828668458493338e-07,
      "percentile": 0.951696797766974
    },
    "sha256": "383104aa946d08c90b3176f4c7d80e085885c3f041ba267bae8c2f2016dd5eaf",
    "simhash": "1:45dbc8606aa9a96f",
    "word_count": 557
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mitchell Dewayne JENKINS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt Jr.,\nChief Justice. The appellant, Mitchell Jenkins, was charged by information with the offense of DWI 4th Offense, and he initially pled not guilty. Prior to trial, Jenkins filed a \u201cmotion in limine to suppress use of prior [DWI] conviction for lack of proper waiver of counsel.\u201d Thereafter, the trial court found that Jenkins had intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily effected the waiver of counsel.\nLater, Jenkins pled guilty to the charge of DWI 4th Offense pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3(b), under the assumption that it allowed him to enter a conditional plea of guilty by preserving his right to seek appellate review of the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to suppress a prior DWI conviction.\nJenkins was sentenced to three years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction, a $900.00 fine, $302.55 court costs, three year suspension of driving privileges, and inpatient treatment at the Quapaw House.\nOn appeal, Jenkins asserts that the trial court erred in finding an effective waiver of counsel. We find that the judgment being appealed is not encompassed within Rule 24.3(b). Consequently, this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.\nArkansas R. Crim. P. 36.1 provides, in pertinent part, that \u201c[e]xcept as provided by Rule 24.3(b) there shall be no appeal from a plea of guilty or nolo contendr\u00e9 [contendere].\u201d Rule 24.3(b) provides as follows:\nWith the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendr\u00e9 [contendere], reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. If the defendant prevails on appeal, he shall be allowed to withdraw his pleas.\nJenkins\u2019s motion in limine to suppress the use of a prior conviction as evidence is distinguishable from the suppression of evidence contemplated by Rule 24.3(b). A motion to suppress evidence presupposes that the evidence was illegally obtained. Here, we are simply dealing with the admissibility of evidence, rather than \u201cillegally obtained\u201d evidence. For illustrations of illegally obtained evidence, see Ark. R. Cr. P. Rule 16.2.\nIn a somewhat analogous case, State v. Russell, 271 Ark. 817, 611 S.W.2d 518 (1981), we addressed the issue of appellate jurisdiction on an interlocutory appeal by the State from a pretrial order denying the admission of a deposition. In Russell, the trial court held that the deposition of the State\u2019s witness who died prior to trial was not admissible and the State brought an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 16.2(d) and 36.10, contending that the deposition was admissible. We held that the order appealed from dealt only with the admissibility of evidence in the form of a deposition and not with the suppression of evidence and that the pretrial order was, as a result, not appealable.\nIn this case, too, we are presented with the admissibility of Jenkins\u2019s prior DWI conviction and not with the suppression of evidence as contemplated by Rule 24.3(b).\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt Jr.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Daniel D. Becker, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mitchell Dewayne JENKINS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-217\n781 S.W.2d 461\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1989\n[Rehearing denied February 12, 1990.]\nDaniel D. Becker, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0020-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 52
}