Page:McGhee v. State, 334 Ark. 543 (1998).pdf/1

Rh CR 98-561 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 15, 1998 
 * 1) CRIMINAL LAW—INCARCERATION AS ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF ORDER—WHEN ALLOWED.—Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-4-304 (Repl. 1994) explicitly provides for incarceration as an additional condition of an order, but it may be used only when the suspension of imposition of sentence is given effect.
 * 2) CRIMINAL LAW—MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE—WHEN TRIAL COURT LOSES JURISDICTION.—A trial court loses jurisdiction to amend or modify the original sentence once a valid execution is put into place; a plea of guilty, coupled with a fine and a suspension of imposition of sentence of imprisonment constitutes a conviction; therefore, the court loses the power to modify the original order.
 * 3) COURTS—PRECEDENT—STARE DECISIS DISCUSSED.—Precedent should not implicitly govern, but discreetly guide; the policy of adhering to precedent, or the doctrine of stare decisis, is fundamental to the common law; precedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable.
 * 4) COURTS—PRECEDENT—OVERRULING CASE LAW.—Where it is determined that a rule established by precedent no longer gives a just result, it must then be determined whether the rights of those who have justifiably relied upon the established precedents are of greater weight in the case than that the rule be corrected; the test is whether it is more important that the matter remain settled than that it be settled correctly.
 * 5) COURTS—PRIOR DECISIONS—PRESUMED VALID.—There is a strong presumption of the validity of prior decisions; while the supreme court does have the power to overrule a previous decision, it is necessary, as a matter of public policy, to uphold prior decisions unless a great injury or injustice would result; adherence to precedent promotes stability, predictability, and respect for judicial authority.
 * 6) APPEAL & ERROR—ARGUMENTS UNSUPPORTED BY AUTHORITY—NOT CONSIDERED BY COURT.—The supreme court does not