Background
Brock Davis appealed his convictions for rape and aggravated assault and his respective sentences of life imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment. The State had charged him as a habitual offender with kidnapping, rape, and aggravated assault. Under the written plea agreement, the State would nolle pross the kidnapping charge and recommend thirty years’ imprisonment followed by twenty years’ suspended imposition of sentence for rape, plus a concurrent six-year sentence for aggravated assault. The agreement did not state the range of possible punishments.
At the October 30, 2025 plea hearing, Davis confirmed that he had reviewed and signed the plea documents with counsel, understood his rights, and had not been threatened or promised anything to induce his plea. The circuit court did not address the guilty-plea statement’s provision that the agreement did not bind the court. Davis pleaded guilty and agreed with the prosecution’s factual proffer concerning the assault on a fifteen-year-old girl. After reviewing sentencing materials and hearing about Davis’s prior murder and escape convictions, the court rejected the recommended disposition and imposed life imprisonment for rape and six years for aggravated assault. The hearing ended without objection.
Before entry of the sentencing order, Davis moved to withdraw his plea under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.1, arguing that he lacked notice that the court would reject the recommendation and received no opportunity to withdraw. Following a hearing, the circuit court found that it had never indicated concurrence with the recommended sentence and that Davis had not proved manifest injustice. It denied withdrawal and entered the sentencing order.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, reviewing the denial for abuse of discretion. It explained that Rule 26.1 permits discretionary withdrawal after acceptance of a plea, but before judgment, to correct manifest injustice. Rule 26.1(b)(v) applies when a defendant does not receive concessions contemplated by an agreement in which the trial court indicated concurrence and the defendant was not given the required opportunity to affirm or withdraw.
Davis argued that concurrence was implicit in the court’s conduct of the plea hearing, dismissal of the kidnapping charge, and acceptance of his pleas. The court rejected that argument, finding nothing in the record showing express or implicit concurrence with the agreement’s terms. It held that the circuit court’s silence did not constitute concurrence and therefore found no abuse of discretion in denying relief under Rule 26.1(b)(v). The court distinguished Lewis v. State, where the circuit court had agreed to sentence according to the plea agreement, and found Drake v. State unpersuasive because of its different facts and procedural posture.
The majority did not decide whether the circuit court violated Rule 25.3(c) by failing to advise Davis that the agreement was nonbinding and that the disposition could differ. It also did not reach his related Rule 26.1(b)(iii) claim concerning knowledge that the imposed sentence could be imposed. Because those arguments had not been raised below, the majority held them unpreserved. Davis’s general fairness and policy argument supplied no basis for reversal.
Key Takeaways
- A circuit court’s silence regarding a plea agreement’s terms did not constitute indicated concurrence under Rule 26.1(b)(v) on this record.
- The majority declined to review the Rule 25.3(c) and Rule 26.1(b)(iii) arguments because they were raised for the first time on appeal; it did not establish a merits rule eliminating Rule 25.3(c)’s advisory obligations.
- Justice Womack concurred but would dismiss the appeal and overrule precedent permitting appeals from denials of plea-withdrawal motions. Justice Bronni would find the additional arguments preserved but reject them on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of obtaining a clear record concerning whether a circuit court concurs in a plea agreement and of preserving every applicable rule-based objection below. The majority separately encouraged defense counsel and circuit courts to ensure that defendants understand their rights and the potential consequences of pleading guilty without judicial concurrence.
The separate opinions leave broader questions open: Justice Womack challenged appellate jurisdiction over such plea-withdrawal appeals, while Justice Bronni warned that declining merits review could shift the dispute into collateral proceedings.