Reed v. State
2014 Ark. App. 10
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Terry Douglas Reed was convicted in 2006 of possession of methamphetamine (charged as a habitual offender), received 1 year imprisonment with a nine-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), and was paroled July 2006.
- In 2008 Reed pled guilty to the 2006 methamphetamine charge and to new 2007 charges (possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia); he received concurrent sentences including prison terms plus multi-year SIS terms and was released October 22, 2008.
- In 2011 the State petitioned to revoke Reed’s SIS based on new possession-of-methamphetamine and paraphernalia offenses; Reed was stopped by police, methamphetamine residue and paraphernalia were found, and he admitted long-term methamphetamine use.
- The trial court revoked Reed’s SIS and entered a 2011 judgment imposing concurrent terms including two 12-year prison terms with seven-year SIS terms for the Class C felonies and six years for the Class D felony.
- Reed challenged on appeal that the 2011 revocation sentences were illegal because they exceeded the statutory sentencing ranges in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a) and because he was not actually sentenced as a habitual offender; the State conceded error.
- The Court of Appeals agreed the sentences were illegal (habitual-offender enhancement did not apply because the record showed habitually criminal enhancements were not pursued) and affirmed the revocation but remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reed) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentences imposed on revocation exceeded statutory sentencing ranges | Reed: Sentences for Class C felonies (12 yrs + 7-yr SIS) exceed §5-4-401(a)(4) (3–10 yrs); Class D exposure limited by prior time served so max on revocation was 4 yrs | State: Conceded that the sentences were erroneous | Court: Sentences are illegal; revocation affirmed but remanded for resentencing |
| Whether habitual-offender statute justified the longer sentences | Reed: He was not convicted/sentenced as a habitual offender; enhancement inapplicable | State: At hearing parties appeared to believe habitual-offender status applied but record does not support it; State conceded error | Court: Habitual-offender statute did not apply because record shows "habitual criminal is not pursued"; enhancement unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for appellate counsel’s withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)