{
  "id": 1935052,
  "name": "Richard ECKL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eckl v. State",
  "decision_date": "1993-04-20",
  "docket_number": "CR 92-1188",
  "first_page": "544",
  "last_page": "547",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 Ark. 544"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "851 S.W.2d 428"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "239 Ark. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1730642
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/239/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742370
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891341
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893823
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892715
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885532
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885503
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885546
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0345-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3984,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.864,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.971472193254749e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8503213893937446
    },
    "sha256": "8feb1d48a81b7eb347755382e77eb82dfe84380df005b5754cd52cd2b778ee87",
    "simhash": "1:18aaecf7313e895c",
    "word_count": 683
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:25.249850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard ECKL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant, Richard Eckl, pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to three years probation and a $500 fine. Eckl contends the Trial Court erred by denying a motion to dismiss premised upon alleged violations of the statute of limitations and the speedy trial rule. Because we lack authority to hear Eckl\u2019s appeal from a guilty plea, the appeal is dismissed.\nThe right of appeal in criminal cases is conferred upon \u201cany person convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony ... in any circuit court of this state\u201d by Arkansas R. Crim. P. 36.1 (1992). The Rule also provides, \u201cExcept 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:\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 plea.\nEckl reserved in writing the right to appeal the denial of the pretrial motion to dismiss. The Court, the prosecutor, and the defense counsel all agreed the motion to dismiss would be treated as a motion to suppress under Rule 24.3 (b) so as to preserve Eckl\u2019s right to appeal.\nRule 24.3 (b) applies only to adverse rulings on motions to suppress evidence illegally obtained. See, e.g., Pickett v. State, 301 Ark. 345, 783 S.W.2d 854 (1990); Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 20, 781 S.W.2d 461 (1989).\nIn Jenkins v. State, 301 Ark. 586, 786 S.W.2d 566 (1990), Jenkins pleaded nolo contendr\u00e9 to an offense and reserved the right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based upon a speedy trial violation. We refused to address the speedy trial issue because Jenkins had no right to appeal from a plea of nolo contendere. We reached that decision despite the fact that the Trial Court, the prosecutor, and the defense counsel all agreed that Jenkins could enter a conditional plea and reserve his right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss.\nEckl contends a guilty plea waives only non-jurisdictional errors, relying on Garrett v. State, 296 Ark. 550, 759 S.W.2d 23 (1988), and Finley v. State, 295 Ark. 357, 748 S.W.2d 643 (1988) . Eckl argues that because the speedy trial and statute of limitations defenses are jurisdictional, they have not been waived by his plea of guilty.\nIt is clear that the right to a speedy trial is waived by a guilty plea. Kennedy v. State, 297 Ark. 488, 763 S.W.2d 648 (1989) Hall v. State, 281 Ark. 282, 663 S.W.2d 926 (1984). Eckl is correct, however, in arguing that the statute of limitations is \u201cjurisdictional\u201d in the sense of not being subject to waiver in a criminal case. In Savage v. Hawkins, 239 Ark. 658, 391 S.W.2d 18 (1965), we wrote:\nUnlike some of the civil statutes of limitation which are waived unless pleaded, this limitation of prosecution statute (\u00a7 43-1602, supra) is jurisdictional. Under the express wording of the statute that \u201cNo person shall be prosecuted, tried and punished for any felony unless an indictment be found within three years after the commission of the offense,\u201d after three years (unless the running of the statute is tolled) a court is without power to try the case.\nThe jurisdictional nature of the alleged error does not, however, create a basis for direct appeal to this Court. The only possibility for establishing the right of appeal of a judgment of conviction resulting from a guilty plea is pursuant to Rule 24.3(b). As that Rule does not apply in these circumstances, we must dismiss the appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Knollmeyer, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Catherine Templeton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard ECKL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 92-1188\n851 S.W.2d 428\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 20, 1993\nMichael Knollmeyer, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Catherine Templeton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0544-01",
  "first_page_order": 574,
  "last_page_order": 577
}