Canada v. State (Per Curiam)
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.
In 2013, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to battery in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a minor. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion requesting leave to proceed with a belated appeal from the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing that he was entitled to proceed with a belated appeal, as he did not contend that his plea was conditional or that it otherwise met any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal from the judgment.
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. 336 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-547 Opinion Delivered July 31, 2014 RONNIE LEE CANADA PETITIONER V. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 60CR-12-1562] HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT, JR., JUDGE MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM On June 19, 2013, judgment was entered reflecting that petitioner Ronnie Lee Canada had entered a plea of guilty to battery in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a minor. An aggregate sentence of 480 months imprisonment was imposed. On June 20, 2014, petitioner filed the motion that is now before us, requesting leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment of conviction. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure Criminal 1(a) (2013) provides that there is no direct appeal from a plea of guilty. An exception is created when a conditional plea of guilty is premised on an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3 (2013). See Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004). Two additional exceptions to the general rule, as set out in Seibs and Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 328 (per curiam), are (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself and (2) when the appeal is from a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. See Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003). Absent one of the Cite as 2014 Ark. 336 exceptions, a defendant waives his right to appeal when he pleads guilty. Nelson v. State, 2012 Ark. 217 (per curiam); Smith v. State, 2011 Ark. 54 (per curiam); Grissom, 2009 Ark. 328; see also Berry v. City of Fayetteville, 354 Ark. 470, 125 S.W.3d 171 (2003); Barnett v. State, 336 Ark. 165, 984 S.W.2d 444 (1999). We have held, however, that an appeal may be taken after a guilty plea when the petitioner alleges evidentiary errors which arose after the plea and during the sentencing phase, regardless of whether a jury was impaneled for that phase of trial. See Tubbs v. State, 2011 Ark. 166 (per curiam); see also Johnson v. State, 2010 Ark. 63. Petitioner here does not contend that his plea was conditional or that it otherwise met any of the exceptions that would allow for an appeal from the judgment. For that reason, he has not met his burden of establishing that he is entitled to proceed with a belated appeal. See Nelson, 2012 Ark. 217; see also Smith, 2011 Ark. 54. Motion denied. Ronnie Lee Canada, pro se petitioner. No response. -2-
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.
