18 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bradford v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331 , 3 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004); Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394 , 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003). 2024Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331 , 3 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004); Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394 , 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003). | 4 | 7 |
Starks v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Starks v. State, 2019 Ark. 2019One brief only. 1 Case number 04CR-16-1603 (possession of drug paraphernalia) and case number 2017-40-2 (possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine)). 2 Case number 04CR-17-882 (possession of drug paraphernalia and failure to appear for felony offense) and case number 04CR-18-463 (possession of drug paraphernalia). 3 “There are three exceptions: (1) when a conditional plea of guilty is premised on an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3; (2) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a se | 1 | 2 |
Jeffery Bushnell v. State of Arkansasgreen1 sentence2021See Bushnell v. State, 2020 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Andry v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Andry v. State, 2014 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Tubbs v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Seibs, 357 Ark. at 335 , 166 S.W.3d at 18 ; see also Tubbs, 2017 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seibs v. State
green
2 sentences2017The court noted the two additional exceptions to the general rule as set out in Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 328 (per curiam), and Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331 , 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004): (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea 4 Cite as 2017 Ark. 2017The court noted the two additional exceptions to the general rule as set out in Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 328 (per curiam), and Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331 , 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004): (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea 4 Cite as 2017 Ark. | 8 | 2005–2024 |
Cartwright v. State
neutral
2 sentences2019Cartwright v. State , 2017 Ark. 2017The court noted the two additional exceptions to the general rule as set out in Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 328 (per curiam), and Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331 , 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004): (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea 4 Cite as 2017 Ark. | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2017Wright, supra; see also Bradford, supra. Absent one of the exceptions, a defendant waives his right to appeal when he pleads guilty. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cardenas-Haliburton v. State
neutral
1 sentence2016Two additional exceptions to the general rule, as set Cite as 2016 Ark. 181 out in Seibs and Johnson v. State, 2010 Ark. 63 , are (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself and (2) when the appeal is from a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. | 1 | 2016–2016 |