Stuart Thompson v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JUDGE DAVID M. GLOVER
DIVISION II
CACR06-428
November 1, 2006
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-2005-2020-1]
STUART THOMPSON
APPELLANT
V.
HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
DISMISSED
Officer Andy Lee, a member of the Bentonville Police Department, arrested
appellant, Stuart Thompson, for driving while intoxicated. At the time of the arrest, Lee
was working as an auxiliary law-enforcement officer at the University of Arkansas-Texas
football game in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The case was submitted to the trial judge on
stipulated facts and trial briefs.
The trial judge found Thompson guilty.
Thompson
makes four arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law when it found
that Officer Lee arrested him at the request of or with the permission of the municipal or
county law enforcement agency having jurisdiction in the locale where the arrest was
made; (2) the trial court erred as a matter of law when it found that a University of
Arkansas police officer had the authority equivalent to that possessed by a county or
municipal police officer; (3) the trial court was clearly erroneous when it found that the
Bentonville Police Department had a written policy on file regulating the actions of
Officer Lee relevant to his arrest of appellant outside his territorial jurisdiction; (4) even if
this court finds that Bentonville Police Department’s General Order Number 15, Mutual
Assistance, did apply to Officer Lee’s activities relevant to his arrest of appellant outside
his jurisdiction, then the trial court erred as a matter of law when it found that Officer Lee
had authority to arrest appellant under this policy. We hold that this appeal must be
dismissed.
It was stipulated that on September 11, 2004, Officer Andy Lee, Jr., of the
Bentonville Police Department, was working an off-duty detail for the University of
Arkansas Police Department during the Arkansas-Texas football game in Fayetteville,
Arkansas, and that Officer Lee was working traffic control at the intersection of
Cleveland Street and North Garland Avenue when he stopped Thompson, who was
driving a four-wheeler, and arrested Thompson for driving while intoxicated. It was
further stipulated “that [Thompson] was, in fact, driving while intoxicated under the law
of the State of Arkansas, but the parties disagree as to whether or not Officer Lee had the
jurisdictional authority to effectuate a valid arrest. That, should the Court determine that
Officer Lee had the necessary jurisdictional power to effectuate an arrest, then the
defendant should be found guilty. That, should the Court determine that Officer Lee did
-2-
not have the jurisdictional power to effectuate an arrest, then the defendant should be
adjudged not guilty.”
The briefs that were submitted to the trial court were not in Thompson’s
addendum, but they are in the record. In the first paragraph of his trial brief, Thompson
stated:
Officer Andy Lee, Jr., a Bentonville police officer working for the University of
Arkansas, was outside his territorial jurisdiction when he detained and arrested the
defendant in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Further, Officer Lee was without any other
statutory or other official power which might have allowed him to arrest the
defendant outside of his jurisdiction. Accordingly, evidence obtained subsequent
to the unlawful detention and illegal arrest of the defendant is a direct result of an
unreasonable seizure in violation of defendant’s rights under the 4 th Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution, and should be suppressed and excluded from evidence at
trial, resulting in a dismissal of charges against defendant.
Although Thompson alleged in his trial brief that evidence was obtained as a result of an
illegal arrest and that evidence should be suppressed, he never filed a motion to suppress
evidence. Furthermore, Thompson never clarified what evidence was obtained that must
be suppressed. The trial judge informed the parties by letter opinion of his decision
finding Thompson guilty and setting the date of the sentencing hearing.
The judgment and commitment order in this case indicates that Thompson
voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly entered a negotiated plea of guilty; the same
order states that Thompson was informed of his right to appeal. These words seem to
indicate that Thompson was attempting to enter a conditional plea of guilty – that if the
trial court found that Officer Lee had the authority to make the arrest, Thompson was
guilty of driving while intoxicated.
However, Thompson failed to properly enter a
-3-
conditional plea of guilty. Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides:
With the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a
defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in
writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review an adverse determination
of a pretrial motion to suppress seized evidence or a custodial statement. If the
defendant prevails on appeal, the defendant shall be allowed to withdraw the
conditional plea.
When the express terms of Rule 24.3(b) are not complied with, this court does not
acquire jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conditional plea. Hancock v. State, 90 Ark.
App. 473, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005). Conditional pleas pursuant to Rule 24.3(b) are limited
to review by the appellate courts “solely with respect to adverse rulings on motions to
suppress illegally obtained evidence.” Berry v. City of Fayetteville, 354 Ark. 470, 472,
125 S.W.3d 171, 172 (2003) (citing Payne v. State, 327 Ark. 25, 937 S.W.2d 160 (1997)).
In this case, Thompson did not file a motion to suppress; therefore, this court cannot
entertain a conditional plea of guilty under Rule 24.3(b).
Even if Thompson’s trial brief could be construed as a motion to suppress, it
would still fail because (i) there was no written reservation of the right to appeal entered
contemporaneously with the plea, which is also required in order to enter a conditional
plea under Rule 24.3(b), see Grupa v. State, 83 Ark. App. 389, 128 S.W.3d 470 (2003);
and (ii) there is no indication that the prosecuting attorney acquiesced in the conditional
plea, which is a further requirement. See Bristow v. State, 82 Ark. App. 145, 119 S.W.3d
527 (2003).
-4-
Appeal dismissed.
P ITTMAN, C.J., and G RIFFEN, J., agree.
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
