Legal Opinion

Laymon v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 17, 2015No. CR-15-291PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRobin F. Wynne, Associate Justice

It Chad Steve Laymon appeals from his conditional plea of guilty to a charge of driving while intoxicated, sixth offense. He argues on appeal that his conviction violated the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. This case was certified to us by our court of appeals pursuant to Arkansas Supreme . Court Rules l-2(b)(l) and l-2(d) (2015), as presenting an issue of first impression regarding whether an appeal is allowed from appellant’s conditional plea. We affirm.

Appellant was charged by information with a violation' of Arkansas…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  2. Green v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1997
  3. Huddleston v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  4. Eichelberger v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Sims v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Smith v. PavanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2016
  2. Ward v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2018
  3. Antonio Bailey v. State of ArkansasCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2021
  4. Kimbrell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017
  5. Clarence Curtis v. State of ArkansasCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2020

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API