Glaze v. State
2011 Ark. 464
Ark.2011Background
- Glaze was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced as a habitual offender to 25 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- The State filed an amended felony information on the morning of trial adding a habitual-offender allegation.
- Glaze admitted to three Arkansas prior felonies and to a Georgia felony conviction in Georgia during sentencing proceedings.
- The amended information incorporated by reference the original charges and quoted the habitual-offender statute; no specific list of prior convictions was required to be stated.
- The jury instruction stated Glaze had four prior felonies and was an habitual offender, with a range punishment under the applicable statute.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals was remanded for resentencing under the Code’s habitual-offender statute; the Supreme Court concluded 16-90-201 conflicts irreconcilably with 5-4-501.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Form of amended information | Glaze argues the amendment lacked specificity of prior convictions. | State contends general habitual-offender language suffices to notify prior convictions. | Amendment sufficient; no error in form. |
| Timing of amended information | amendment on trial morning violated notice regarding Georgia conviction. | amendment does not alter the crime; no unfair surprise. | Amendment timely; no unfair surprise; no error. |
| Repeal by implication of § 16-90-201 vs § 5-4-501 | § 16-90-201 repealed by implication by the Criminal Code; jury should be instructed under § 5-4-501. | statutes harmonize or can be read together; no repeal by implication. | Implied repeal of § 16-90-201; resentencing under § 5-4-501 required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finch v. State, 262 Ark. 313, 556 S.W.2d 434 (1977) (habitual-offender allegation is an essential element; notice purpose)
- Baumgarner v. State, 316 Ark. 373, 872 S.W.2d 380 (1994) (amendments to information may proceed if no change in elements)
- Wilson v. State, 251 Ark. 900, 475 S.W.2d 543 (1972) (general language about habitual-offender status adequate notice)
- Traylor v. State, 304 Ark. 174, 801 S.W.2d 267 (1990) (amendment on day of trial allowed if no change in crime's nature)
- Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203, 217 S.W.3d 817 (2005) (dual reading of § 16-90-120 and Code; harmonization principle)
- Sesley v. State, 2011 Ark. 104, 380 S.W.3d 390 (2011) (repeal by implication analysis in sentencing context)
- Neely v. State, 2010 Ark. 452, 370 S.W.3d 820 (2010) (interpretation of firearm-enhancement statutes with Code)
- Joslin v. State, 364 Ark. 545, 222 S.W.3d 168 (2006) (jurisdictional authority over sentencing within statutory ranges)