Jackson v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant Dwight Jackson pled guilty to one count of delivery of a counterfeit substance and was sentenced by the circuit court to ninety-six months' imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging (1) he did not sign his plea agreement in open court and had been coerced into signing the agreement, (2) his plea of guilty was not made voluntarily or knowingly, and (3) the plea statement he signed did not contain the mandatory range of punishment, and the trial court did not explain the range of punishment to him. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the record did not contain a transcript of the plea hearing, the Court was unable to conduct an adequate review.
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 41 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 10-313 Opinion Delivered DWIGHT JACKSON APPELLANT February 2, 2012 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LITTLE RIVER CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2009-106, HON. TOM COOPER, JUDGE V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM Appellant Dwight Jackson brings the instant pro se appeal from an order of the Little River County Circuit Court denying his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). Because appellant has not provided a record sufficient for our review of the points that he would raise on appeal, we affirm. Appellant pled guilty to one count of delivery of a counterfeit substance (cocaine) and was sentenced by the circuit court to ninety-six months imprisonment. Imposition of an additional sentence of twenty-four months was suspended. Appellant filed the Rule 37.1 petition, asserting that he was entitled to postconviction relief on four bases, as follows: (1) he did not sign his plea agreement in open court and had been coerced into signing the agreement through threats to imprison his grandfather; (2) his plea of guilty was not made voluntarily or knowingly, as it was made on the advice of counsel who acted ineffectively because counsel advised appellant to enter a guilty plea when he was innocent and failed to advise appellant of defects in the bill of information resulting from the determination that the substance delivered was not cocaine; (3) his plea was not made knowingly Cite as 2012 Ark. 41 or voluntarily because he was not advised that he would be ineligible for parole; (4) the plea statement that he signed did not contain the mandatory range of punishment, and the trial court did not explain the range of punishment to him. His four points on appeal reassert those same issues. The circuit court entered an order on January 5, 2010, denying the petition that appellant had filed. Therein, the circuit court found that appellant had signed his plea statement and, on the record, indicated that his plea was not induced by force, threat, or promise. Further, the circuit court found that appellant acknowledged entering his plea with the understanding that neither his attorney, nor the prosecuting attorney or court, made any representations about his release from confinement prior to completion of the sentence. Finally, apparently addressing both the second and fourth claims in the petition, the circuit court found that appellant was notified of the possible range of punishment when the State orally amended the charge from possession of crack cocaine to possession of a counterfeit substance with intent to deliver. The circuit court concluded that appellant failed to state grounds warranting relief pursuant to Rule 37.1. Each of the issues presented in appellant s petition turns on what occurred when his plea was accepted. The trial court based its rulings on findings made concerning what transpired when the court accepted appellant s plea. Yet, the record does not contain a transcript of the plea hearing. A petitioner who seeks relief in this court has the burden to bring up a sufficient record upon which to grant relief. Daniels v. State, 2009 Ark. 607 (per curiam). It is well settled that an 2 Cite as 2012 Ark. 41 appellant bears the burden of producing a record that demonstrates error. Id.; see also Johnson v. State, 2011 Ark. 455 (per curiam); Barnes v. State, 2011 Ark. 153 (per curiam); Polivka v. State, 2010 Ark. 152, ___ S.W.3d ___; Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per curiam). Where the appellant fails to meet his burden, this court has no choice but to affirm the trial court s decision. Davidson v. State, 363 Ark. 86, 210 S.W.3d 887 (2005). Each of appellant s issues that he would raise concerns allegations of what was said by him or to him during the plea hearing, and the trial court referenced statements apparently made by appellant, the court, and others during the plea hearing. We are unable to conduct an adequate review without a more complete record. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of postconviction relief. Affirmed. 3
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.
