Anderson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 300

Tearbrey Anderson and Zayzhon Thompson were convicted in Pulaski County Circuit Court of multiple felonies (aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, theft, terroristic threatening) and received firearm enhancements for six counts; Anderson also received a habitual-offender enhancement.
Thompson received an aggregate 20-year sentence; Anderson received an aggregate 30-year sentence.
On appeal, both defendants contended that the firearm-enhancement statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120) is a lesser-included offense of the underlying felonies involving a firearm, and that imposing both the felony convictions and firearm enhancements violates Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-110 (prohibiting conviction of an offense and its lesser-included offense).
The appellants acknowledged they did not raise this argument in the trial court and presented it for the first time on appeal, framing it as a challenge to an illegal sentence.
The Court of Appeals treated the claim as a double-jeopardy challenge (not an illegal-on-its-face sentence issue), found it unpreserved, and declined to revisit existing precedent rejecting the same contention.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether firearm-enhancement under § 16-90-120 is a lesser-included offense of felonies requiring a firearm (violating § 5-1-110)	Firearm enhancement is a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery/burglary; convictions for both are barred	Enhancement is a sentencing provision, not a separate substantive offense; no § 5-1-110 violation	The claim is a double-jeopardy challenge, not an illegal sentence; unpreserved and rejected under precedent
Whether the claim can be raised for first time on appeal as an illegal sentence (void on its face)	Appellants framed argument as illegal sentence to avoid preservation rules	Sentences were within statutory limits; issue is not apparent on face of sentence and thus not jurisdictional	Not an illegal-on-its-face issue; unpreserved for appeal

Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (illegal sentence review and subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
State v. Webb, 281 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2008) (jurisdictional nature of void sentences)
Cross v. State, 357 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. 2009) (when a court lacks authority to impose a sentence)
Cook v. State, 878 S.W.2d 765 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994) (definition of "illegal sentence" as illegal on its face)
Lovelace v. State, 785 S.W.2d 212 (Ark. 1990) (sentence legality discussion)
Williams v. State, 217 S.W.3d 817 (Ark. 2005) (discussion rejecting merger of firearm enhancement into underlying offense)
Davis v. State, 220 S.W.3d 248 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (treatment of firearm enhancements as sentencing devices)