ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-1118
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
MANUEL TOOMBS
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
Opinion Delivered November 9, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE
COUNTY, CR 2003-157, HON.
HARVEY LEE YATES, JUDGE]
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
A judgment and commitment order entered in Lee County Circuit Court on March 2, 2005,
reflects that petitioner Manuel Toombs entered a negotiated plea of guilty to theft of property and
was sentenced to seventy-two months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On
October 2, 2006, petitioner filed the pro se petition in this court for belated appeal of the judgment
which is now before us.
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. Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004). Petitioner does not
contend, and the record does not reflect, that his plea of guilty was conditional. We have recognized
two other exceptions to the general rule, as set out in Seibs and Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94
S.W.3d 904 (2003). The two exceptions 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
-2-
is an appeal of a posttrial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. Seibs,
357 Ark. at 334, 116 S.W.3d at 17; Bradford, 351 Ark. at 399, 94 S.W.3d at 907. The case at hand
does not fall within either exception.
Petitioner does not contend, and the record does not reflect, that he was sentenced by a jury.
The record does not indicate that any posttrial motion was filed. Petitioner indicates that he filed a
petition for writ of error coram nobis, but moved to dismiss it. Thus, none of the recognized
exceptions apply in this situation, and we therefore have no jurisdiction for an appeal. See S