Cartwright v. State
2017 Ark. App. 100
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Justin Cartwright pleaded guilty in February 2016 to multiple charges in two Jefferson County cases pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a 20-year (240-month) sentence concession and a promise to testify truthfully against codefendant Corderro Foster.
- The trial court accepted the guilty pleas but deferred sentencing until after Foster’s trial.
- At the March 2016 sentencing hearing the State said Cartwright’s testimony at Foster’s trial contradicted prior expectations and sought to withdraw its sentencing recommendation; defense counsel disputed that Cartwright breached the agreement.
- The trial court allowed the State to withdraw its recommendation, declined to impose the bargained-for sentence, and sentenced Cartwright to lengthy aggregate terms (totaling 696 months, consecutive to an existing sentence).
- Cartwright appealed, arguing the trial court violated Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 25.3 by failing to advise him that the plea agreement was not binding and that he could affirm or withdraw his plea when the bargained-for disposition was not followed.
- The appellate panel dismissed the appeal, holding Cartwright’s guilty plea generally precludes direct appeal and that his claim did not fit recognized exceptions allowing review of guilty pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Cartwright's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated Ark. R. Crim. P. 25.3 by failing to advise Cartwright that the agreement was not binding and that he could affirm or withdraw his plea when the bargained sentence was not imposed | Rule 25.3 required the court to give the notice and opportunity to withdraw once the sentence concession was abandoned | The court did not need to give Rule 25.3(b) withdrawal notice because the State withdrew its recommendation; Rule 25.3 does not address state-initiated withdrawal the same as judicial deviation | Appeal dismissed on procedural grounds; court did not reach merits of Rule 25.3 violation (concurring opinion noted a gap in the rules) |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Cartwright breached the plea agreement to justify withdrawal of the State’s recommendation | Cartwright testified truthfully; State presented no contrary evidence and thus failed to prove a breach | State relied on defense counsel’s prior representations about expected testimony and argued Cartwright’s trial testimony conflicted with those representations | Court did not resolve the sufficiency question because it held Cartwright’s guilty plea generally bars direct appeal absent an exception |
| Whether Cartwright may directly appeal from his guilty plea / sentence under Arkansas precedent | Cartwright asserted the Rule 25.3 notice failure supports a direct appeal of the sentencing orders | State argued a direct appeal is barred because defendant pleaded guilty and none of the limited exceptions apply | Court dismissed the appeal as not fitting recognized exceptions to the rule that guilty pleas preclude direct appeals |
| Remedy if Rule 25.3 violation occurred (procedural consequence) | Cartwright sought reversal and remand for resentencing or dismissal based on Bradford precedent requiring notice and ability to withdraw | State opposed remedy; maintained the appeal is procedurally barred | Court did not grant the requested remedy due to dismissal; dissent argued Bradford controlled and the appeal should proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (Ark. 2003) (trial court must advise defendant and allow affirmation or withdrawal if judge declines to follow a plea agreement’s concessions)
- Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (Ark. 2004) (discusses limited exceptions permitting appeal from a guilty plea)
- Steele v. State, 434 S.W.3d 424 (Ark. App. 2014) (standard of review for alternative-sentencing decisions)
- Gooch v. State, 463 S.W.3d 296 (Ark. 2015) (addresses appealability limits following guilty pleas)
- Burgess v. State, 490 S.W.3d 645 (Ark. 2016) (describes exceptions allowing appeal from a guilty plea where sentencing issues are separate from plea acceptance)