Daniel Pedraza, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court held that Pedraza could appeal the denial of additional voir dire because that issue was not shown to be an integral condition of his guilty-plea agreement. On the merits, the court held that the circuit court did not abuse its broad discretion by refusing additional questioning of the selected but unsworn jury, given the prior voir dire, the court's determination that the jurors were qualified, and the absence of demonstrated fundamental unfairness. The court also found no prejudicial error in its required review of adverse rulings. Justice Baker, dissenting and joined by Justice Hart, would have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because use of the selected jury was a condition of the plea agreement.