NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE

DIVISION I

JIMMY GIVENS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-104

October 10, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2000-50]

HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Appellant, Jimmy Givens, pleaded guilty to the crime of possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to three years' probation. According to Givens, pursuant to Rule 24.3(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, he reserved his right to appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. However, because appellant failed to prepare an abstract showing that he complied with Rule 24.3(b), we order rebriefing.

Rule 24.3(b) provides as follows:

With the approval of the court and the consent of the prosecuting attorney, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to review of an adverse determination of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence. If the defendant prevails on appeal, he shall be allowed to withdraw his plea.

In preparing his abstract, Givens failed to abstract any document or remarks at theguilty plea hearing that established that the prosecutor consented to his entering a conditional plea of guilty. Even if we consider Givens's supplemental abstract (which is not provided for in our

rules regarding the preparation of an abstract, see Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2)) of the "Guilty Plea Statement," this document does not present us with any evidence that the prosecutor consented to the conditional plea, and appellant admits that it was not signed by the prosecutor. Only when there is strict compliance with Rule 24.3(b) is our court vested with jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a conditional plea of guilty. See Simmons v. State, 72 Ark. App. 238, 242-43, 34 S.W.3d 768, 771 (2000). Here, Givens failed to abstract anything establishing that there was compliance with Rule 24.3(b), thus permitting this court to reach the merits of the case.

However, as we are authorized to do under Rule 4-2(b)(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, we order rebriefing so Givens may prepare, at his own expense, an abstract showing compliance with Rule 24.3(b).

Rebriefing ordered.

Stroud, C.J., and Jennings, J., agree.