Webb v. State

365 Ark. 22 (2006) (Ark. 2006) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 19, 2006 · No. CR 04-920

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of Micah Lamar Webb's request to withdraw his guilty plea and his related claims concerning mental evaluations and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that the motion was untimely, had not been properly presented to the trial court, and did not satisfy the verification requirements for a Rule 37 post-conviction petition.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Betty C. Dickey
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
January 19, 2006
Docket number
CR 04-920
Procedural posture
Webb appealed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's denial of his oral request to withdraw his guilty plea and also challenged his prior sentencing. The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case after certification from the Court of Appeals.
Standard of review
An untimely motion to withdraw a guilty plea is treated on appeal as a petition for post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37; the petition must satisfy Rule 37's procedural requirements, including verification.
Precedential value
Published precedential opinion
Parties
Micah Lamar Webb v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedurepreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefappellate procedureguilty pleas

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court erred by denying Webb's request to withdraw his guilty plea based on the alleged need to suspend proceedings pending mental evaluations.
  2. Whether Webb's ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel's advice to plead guilty could be considered on appeal.

Holdings

  1. A motion to withdraw a guilty plea made after sentencing or entry of judgment is untimely under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1 and is reviewed as a Rule 37 post-conviction-relief petition. Because Webb made only an unsworn oral motion rather than a verified Rule 37 petition, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim.
  2. The court would not consider Webb's argument that proceedings should have been suspended pending mental evaluations because he did not make that argument in the circuit court.
  3. The court would not reach the merits of Webb's ineffective-assistance claim because it was not presented through a proper, written, and verified Rule 37 petition.

Key quotations

Although Rule 26.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure gives a defendant the right to withdraw his guilty plea, the defendant must do so before sentencing or entry of judgment. (223 S.W.3d at 798)
When a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is untimely, we review it on appeal as a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 37. (223 S.W.3d at 798)

Factual background

Webb was ordered to undergo mental evaluations in September 2003. On April 30, 2004, he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree battery. He received a fifty-year sentence for murder and six-year suspended sentences for each battery charge. After judgment and commitment orders were entered on May 7, 2004, Webb made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea on May 10, asserting that proceedings should have been suspended pending mental evaluations and that counsel was ineffective.

Procedural history

Webb pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree battery and was sentenced on May 7, 2004. He made an oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea three days after judgment and commitment orders were entered. The circuit court denied the request, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion was untimely, the mental-evaluation argument was not preserved, and the unsworn oral motion did not satisfy Rule 37 post-conviction requirements.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…