Handy v. State
2017 Ark. App. 74
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple residential-burglary (Class B) and theft (Class C) charges across the 1998–2013 period and received suspended imposition of sentences (SIS) or prison terms per plea bargains.
- Multiple petitions to revoke SIS were filed over the years; some were nolle prossed, others resulted in guilty pleas or revocations with prison terms.
- In 2016 appellant was tried and convicted by a jury for residential burglary (CR-16-84) and other counts; the State sought habitual-offender sentencing under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(d) (2015 Supp.).
- The 2015 amendment to § 5-4-501 added residential burglary to the list of "felonies involving violence," increasing the available enhanced term (Class B violent felony: 30–60 years).
- Appellant argued the jury instructions and sentencing were erroneous because prior residential-burglary convictions predated the 2015 amendment and thus should not have been counted to enhance his sentence; he also contended the sentence imposed on revocation exceeded what could have originally been imposed.
- The circuit court sentenced appellant as a violent habitual offender (totaling lengthy aggregated terms, including a 720-month term for the new residential burglary). The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing appellant’s proffered jury instructions and instructing regarding sentencing range that included the post‑2015 enhanced range | Instructions misstated applicable sentencing because prior burglaries occurred before § 5‑4‑501(d)’s amendment; appellant should face lower range under § 5‑4‑501(b) | The enhancement under § 5‑4‑501(d) properly applied to the current conviction; prior convictions need not post‑date the amendment to be counted | Court affirmed: instructions and sentencing were proper; enhancement applied to the new conviction and sentencing was not illegal |
| Whether using pre‑amendment residential‑burglary convictions to qualify appellant as a violent habitual offender violated ex post facto or due‑process principles / rendered sentence illegal | Counting prior burglaries (committed before April 1, 2015) to enhance the new conviction is retroactive and increases punishment, so sentence is illegal | Statute applies enhancement to the new conviction (which is post‑amendment); prior convictions may be used regardless of their date; no ex post facto or notice violation | Court held no ex post facto or due‑process violation and no illegal sentence; enhancement valid for the new conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92 (criminal statutes strictly construed)
- McGhee v. State, 82 Ark. App. 105 (ex post facto prohibition explanation)
- Hunter v. State, 8 Ark. App. 283 (habitual‑criminal statute punishes and prior convictions may be used to increase punishment)
- Spivey v. State, 25 Ark. App. 269 (distinguishing enhanced conviction timing and use of prior convictions)
- Donaldson v. State, 370 Ark. 3 (illegal sentence may be raised first on appeal)