Chad Steve Laymon, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court held that it had jurisdiction to review Laymon's conditional guilty plea because his as-applied ex post facto challenge fell within the rule permitting appeals from constitutional challenges to the statute defining the offense. On the merits, applying the statute to a 2014 offense and using earlier DWI convictions to enhance punishment did not violate the ex post facto clauses because the enhanced penalty applied to the later offense. The court declined to consider Laymon's unpreserved due-process arguments.