¶1dissenting. I agree with appellant and the majority that, under the facts of this case, Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3 does not require an affirmative statement of consent from the prosecuting attorney. Therefore, I agree that this court erred in dismissing appellant’s appeal for the reason stated in its original opinion. However, I agree with Judge Robbins that appellant did fail to strictly comply with the Rule’s requirement that he reserve in writing his right to appeal the suppression issue. See Barnett v. State, 336 Ark. 165, 984 S.W.2d 444 (1999); Simmons v. State, 72 Ark. App. 238, 34 S.W.3d 768 (2000). Because I believe that this failure alone requires that appellant’s appeal be dismissed, I express no opinion on the merits of appellant’s arguments concerning the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
74 Ark. App. 349
48 S.W.3d 549
McCormick v. State
Decided June 27, 2001
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · decided 2001-06-27
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2007
20 state decisions
Relies on Barnett v. State · Simmons v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2001-06-27
View the full empirical analysis of this case →