Lee Madden v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-272
Opinion Delivered
LEE MADDEN
Petitioner
April 10, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
DESHA COUNTY, CR 2006-08,
HON. DON E. GLOVER, JUDGE]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
A judgment and commitment order entered on July 12, 2006, reflects that petitioner Lee
Madden entered guilty pleas to charges of aggravated robbery, possession of a firearm by certain
persons, and theft of property valued at $2,500 or more. Petitioner received an aggregate sentence
of 300 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He now brings this motion
for belated appeal in which he seeks this court’s permission to proceed with an appeal of the
judgment.
Generally, under Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 1, there is no right to appeal a guilty plea, except
for a conditional plea of guilty premised on an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant
to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3. Hewitt v. State, 362 Ark. 369, 208 S.W.3d 185 (2005) (per curiam) (citing
Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004)). This court has recognized two other
exceptions to the general rule, as follows: (1) when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence
presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself; (2) when the appeal is
an appeal of a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. Id.
Here, petitioner does not contend, and the judgment does not reflect, that the guilty plea was
entered conditionally. There is no indication that petitioner was sentenced by a jury. The partial
record before us does not contain a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the
sentence. None of the recognized exceptions apply in this situation, and we have no jurisdiction for
an appeal. See Seibs, 357 Ark. at 335, 166 S.W.3d at 18. Accordingly, we deny the motion for
belated appeal.
Motion denied.
-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.
