L. Wilson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 385
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wilson was originally tried for rape of a nine-year-old; jury convicted him of second-degree sexual assault and recommended 20 years; trial court sentenced him to 20 years and a $15,000 fine.
- Posttrial, Wilson moved for a new trial arguing second-degree sexual assault was not a lesser-included offense of rape; the State conceded the point and the jury convictions were set aside.
- The parties reached a negotiated resolution: Wilson entered a no-contest plea to sexual indecency with a child and the trial court sentenced him to six years in the ADC; a sentencing order was filed October 5, 2015.
- Wilson filed a motion to vacate judgment arguing he had not been charged with sexual indecency; the trial court denied the motion on October 26, 2015. Wilson timely appealed.
- Counsel filed an Anders/no-merit brief and moved to withdraw, arguing the appeal lacked arguable merit because convictions were based on a plea and issues from the vacated jury trial were moot; Wilson filed no pro se points. The Court of Appeals affirmed and granted withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of appeal from plea | Wilson argued postjudgment that he was never charged with sexual indecency and raised double-jeopardy concerns | State and counsel argued plea bars appeal except as allowed by rule; Wilson waived appeal rights in plea | Appeal dismissed on merits: no appeal from a nolo contendere plea; plea waiver valid and issues from vacated trial moot |
| Trial court jurisdiction after erroneous jury instruction | Wilson contended erroneous jury instruction (lesser-included charges) deprived court of jurisdiction | State argued error does not strip subject-matter jurisdiction and convictions were vacated then resolved by plea | Court held Birchett controls: erroneous lesser-included instruction does not deprive jurisdiction |
| Preservation of double-jeopardy claim | Wilson raised double-jeopardy in motion to vacate after plea/judgment | State noted issue was not timely raised at trial or in the new-trial motion and was thus unpreserved | Court held failure to timely raise double-jeopardy defeats preservation for appeal |
| Ineffective-assistance claim | Wilson has alleged ineffective assistance in a Rule 37 petition | Counsel argued such claims can be pursued in post-conviction proceedings after mandate | Court agreed that ineffective-assistance claims are properly addressed in Rule 37 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Mezzanatto v. United States, 513 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1995) (a defendant may waive rights during plea bargaining)
- U.S. v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (enforcing sentencing-appeal waivers in plea agreements)
- Hartman v. State, 454 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. 2015) (second-degree sexual assault not a lesser-included offense of rape)
- Gooch v. State, 463 S.W.3d 296 (Ark. 2015) (limitations on appeals following pleas)
- Birchett v. State, 795 S.W.2d 53 (Ark. 1990) (erroneous lesser-included instruction does not divest subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (Ark. 2012) (habeas/successful jurisdictional challenges)
- Lockhart v. State, 508 S.W.3d 869 (Ark. 2017) (timeliness and preservation of double-jeopardy claims)