Oxford v. State
2018 Ark. App. 609
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Oxford participated in an armed trip with three others to a trailer; multiple shooters fired into the trailer, and Justin Lopez died from a gunshot to the head.
- Oxford admitted in police interviews that he and three others wore masks, used two guns, and shot at the trailer; he denied personally firing the fatal shot but acknowledged owning one gun and previously selling the other.
- A jury convicted Oxford of second-degree murder, multiple terroristic-act counts (one involving death), and felony-with-a-firearm enhancements; the jury recommended concurrent sentences totaling 20 years.
- The State asked the court to consider consecutive sentences; defense requested concurrent sentences and suggested consecutive sentencing could penalize Oxford for exercising his right to trial.
- The circuit court, citing the nature of the offense and Oxford’s role supplying weapons and participating in the getaway, ordered the sentences to run consecutively for a total of 936 months.
- Oxford did not object after sentencing or file posttrial motions; he appealed arguing the court considered evidence not in the trial record and acted out of passion/prejudice. The appellate court affirmed on procedural grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oxford) | Defendant's Argument (State/Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences contrary to the jury recommendation | Court relied on facts not introduced at trial and acted from passion/prejudice; resulting sentence shocks the community’s moral sense | Trial court has sole discretion to order concurrent or consecutive sentences; appellant changed grounds on appeal and failed to preserve the specific objections below | Affirmed: issue is procedurally barred because Oxford did not raise these specific arguments in the circuit court after sentencing |
| Whether Oxford preserved his appellate claims by requesting concurrent sentences before sentencing | Request for concurrent sentences preserved the issue on appeal | The pre-sentence request differed in grounds from the arguments raised on appeal; appellant cannot change grounds on appeal | Not preserved: mere request for concurrency was insufficient to preserve new arguments on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 330 Ark. 458, 956 S.W.2d 849 (1997) (appellant may not change grounds for an objection on appeal)
- Eliott v. State, 342 Ark. 237, 27 S.W.3d 432 (2000) (objection must apprise the trial court of the specific alleged error to preserve it for appeal)
- Smallwood v. State, 326 Ark. 813, 935 S.W.2d 530 (1996) (denial of a motion for concurrent sentences can preserve the issue when the trial court was apprised of the objection)
- Rodgers v. State, 348 Ark. 106, 71 S.W.3d 579 (2002) (motion asking the court to set aside a jury sentencing recommendation sufficiently preserved the sentencing issue on appeal)