Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conditional guilty plea where the defendant challenged the constitutionality of the statute defining the offense. The court rejected the defendant’s ex post facto challenge to the use of prior DWI convictions to enhance punishment for a later sixth-offense DWI committed after enactment of the applicable statute. The court declined to consider additional due-process arguments because they were not preserved below.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b)(iii) permits an appeal from a conditional guilty plea following denial of an as-applied constitutional challenge to the statute defining the offense.
- Whether applying Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-122 to enhance punishment for a sixth DWI offense based on prior DWI convictions occurring before the statute's enactment violates the federal or Arkansas ex post facto clauses.
- Whether Laymon's due-process arguments concerning notice, revival of prior convictions, and the ten-year look-back provision were preserved for appellate review.
Holdings
- Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b)(iii) permits an appeal from a conditional guilty plea when the defendant reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute defining the offense, regardless of whether the constitutional challenge is facial or as applied.
- Applying section 5-65-122 to Laymon's 2014 sixth DWI offense and using his prior DWI convictions to enhance the punishment did not violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States or Arkansas Constitutions.
- The court would not consider Laymon's due-process arguments concerning notice, revival of prior convictions, or application of the ten-year look-back period because they were not raised to, or ruled on by, the trial court.
Key quotations
“The enhanced penalty provided for a third offense by that act is not for the first or second offense, but is for the third offense, which is considered as aggravated by reason of the preceding offenses.” (2015 Ark. 485, at 3-4)
Factual background
Laymon was charged with sixth-offense driving while intoxicated based on a DWI occurring on March 14, 2014, after enactment of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-122 in 2013. He argued that using his earlier DWI convictions to enhance punishment violated the federal and state ex post facto clauses. The circuit court rejected the challenge, and Laymon entered a conditional guilty plea.
Procedural history
Laymon was charged in Pope County Circuit Court under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-65-122 with sixth-offense driving while intoxicated. The circuit court denied his pretrial motion to suppress and dismiss, ruling that the statute did not violate the ex post facto clauses and that Laymon had waived counsel in connection with his prior convictions. Laymon then entered a conditional guilty plea and received a sentence of ninety-six months' imprisonment plus forty-eight months' suspended imposition of sentence. The court of appeals certified the appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court as presenting an issue of first impression concerning appeals from conditional pleas.