The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a clarifying opinion Tuesday in *Frank Wheeler v. State of Arkansas*, with Associate Justice Shawn A. Womack writing separately to address the scope of constitutional review in criminal appeals. The concurring opinion directly responds to a dissent's interpretation that would have significantly expanded the court's obligations to consider unpreserved constitutional claims.

Justice Womack's concurrence in the case, cited as 2025 Ark. 196, specifically rejects the premise "that we must now entertain any unpreserved constitutional claim in criminal appeals" based on the court's recent decision in *Evans v. Harrison*. The justice emphasized that such an interpretation misunderstands the limited scope and extraordinary circumstances present in the Evans case.

The case stems from an appeal from the Boone County Circuit Court, where Frank Wheeler challenged his conviction. The specific details of Wheeler's underlying criminal case were not fully disclosed in the available portion of the opinion, but the procedural dispute centers on whether Wheeler properly preserved constitutional claims during his trial and appeal process.

According to Justice Womack's analysis, the Evans case involved "an extraordinary procedural posture" that "invited, and required, constitutional correction." However, he stressed that Evans "did not upend this court's precedent concerning a defendant's obligations in a criminal prosecution and appeal."

The concurrence provides detailed analysis of what made Evans unique and distinguishable from typical criminal appeals. Justice Womack noted that Evans involved a direct conflict between statutory requirements and the Arkansas Constitution, where "the constitutional defect was squarely exposed in the record, identified during oral argument, and subsequently examined through two rounds of supplemental briefing ordered by this court."

Crucially, the Evans case featured "full adversarial development" with both parties addressing "the precise constitutional question that proved dispositive." Justice Womack identified three key factors that made Evans extraordinary: full adversarial development, repeated opportunities to brief the controlling constitutional issue, and a structural problem affecting the validity of every local ballot initiative in Arkansas.

In stark contrast, Justice Womack characterized the Wheeler case as "the one-shot criminal appeal" where "the appellant alone bore responsibility for identifying, preserving, and developing any double-jeopardy claim in the trial court." This distinction underscores the court's continued adherence to traditional procedural requirements for constitutional challenges in criminal cases.

The opinion reveals an ongoing debate within the Arkansas Supreme Court about the appropriate scope of constitutional review. While the concurrence does not detail the specific arguments raised in the dissent, Justice Womack's response suggests that some justices may have advocated for a more expansive approach to reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims.

This procedural dispute has significant implications for criminal defendants and their attorneys throughout Arkansas. The clarification maintains that defendants cannot simply raise constitutional issues for the first time on appeal without having properly preserved them at trial. This preservation requirement serves important judicial efficiency and fairness principles, ensuring that trial courts have the first opportunity to address constitutional issues and that opposing parties can respond appropriately.

The timing of this clarification proves particularly important given the potential confusion that could have resulted from a broader reading of Evans. Criminal defense attorneys needed clear guidance on whether the Evans precedent fundamentally altered the landscape for constitutional challenges in criminal cases.

Justice Womack's concurrence effectively draws a bright line between cases involving systemic constitutional problems affecting the validity of government processes, like Evans, and individual criminal appeals where defendants must follow established preservation rules. This distinction preserves judicial resources while maintaining appropriate constitutional protections.

The opinion also reflects the court's careful approach to constitutional interpretation, emphasizing that extraordinary remedies should be reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances. By limiting Evans to its specific factual and procedural context, the court maintains predictability in criminal procedure while preserving its ability to address fundamental constitutional violations when appropriate.

For practitioners, this decision reinforces the critical importance of raising and properly developing constitutional challenges at the trial level. Defense attorneys cannot rely on appellate courts to rescue unpreserved constitutional claims except in the most unusual circumstances involving structural constitutional problems.

The Wheeler opinion represents the Arkansas Supreme Court's commitment to maintaining established procedural safeguards while clarifying the limited scope of recent precedent. This balance ensures that constitutional protections remain robust while preserving the orderly administration of criminal justice throughout the state.