Jason Carroll Neal, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Goodson, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurring justice agrees with the majority's disposition but emphasizes that drug-court participants facing termination must receive fundamental due-process protections, including notice, a meaningful hearing, an impartial decision maker, written reasons, and potentially appointed counsel. The concurrence also questions whether a drug-court agreement may authorize a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum and urges systemic reforms to ensure consistent procedures. Justice Wood, dissenting, would deny relief because Neal admitted failing to complete a required residential program and, in her view, already received the process due.