Sesley v. State
2011 Ark. 104
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Sesley convicted May 12, 2010 by jury on seven felonies (three aggravated robbery, three theft of property, one terroristic act) with firearm enhancements under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-120; sentencing totaled 22 years with concurrent terms for felonies and concurrent enhancements, consecutive to felony sentences; appellant challenged the firearm enhancement as potentially repealed by implication when the 1976 Arkansas Criminal Code took effect; prior decision in Neely v. State held §16-90-120 not repealed by implication; rehearing in Neely denied; this case relies on Neely and Williams to deny reversal and affirm conviction; appellant argued §16-90-120 conflicted with the then-new Code and §41-1004’s firearm provision; circuit court denied motion to dismiss enhancement after trial; this Court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §16-90-120 was repealed by implication in 1976. | Sesley argues §16-90-120 was impliedly repealed by §41-1004 under the 1976 Code. | State contends §16-90-120 can harmoniously function with the Code and was not repealed. | Not repealed by implication; can be read in harmony with §41-1004. |
| Whether §41-1004 replaced §§ 43-2336/43-2337, eliminating firearm enhancement. | Sesley asserts replacement by §41-1004 would render §16-90-120 moot. | State maintains harmony and does not show repeal of §16-90-120. | §41-1004 did not replace §§ 43-2336/43-2337; §16-90-120 remains viable. |
| Whether the General Assembly intended simultaneous application of §16-90-120 and §5-4-505. | Sesley relies on potential irreconcilable conflict. | State argues these can be read harmoniously; no repeal implied. | §16-90-120 can function as an enhancement alongside §5-4-505; no irreconcilable conflict. |
| Whether Neely v. State should be overruled. | Sesley seeks to overturn Neely’s harmonization reasoning. | State argues Neely remains correct. | Neely not overruled; precedent upheld. |
| Timeliness/adequacy of objection to firearm enhancement at sentencing. | Appellant argues objection was timely; issue deemed inconsequential for appeal. | State contends it does not affect the legal ruling. | Not dispositive; conviction affirmed on statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Neely v. State, 2010 Ark. 452 (2010) (firearm-enhancement statutes harmonized; not repealed by implication)
- Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203 (2005) (harmonious reading of §5-4-104(a) and §16-90-120(a–b); enhancements coexist)
- Johnson v. State, 331 Ark. 421 (1998) (legislative intent when statutes enacted at different times; harmonization presumed)
- Thomas v. State, 349 Ark. 447 (2002) (paripatria; harmonization of related acts; repeal by implication disfavored)
- Cox v. State, 365 Ark. 358 (2006) (irreconcilable conflicts; repeal by implication not found here)
- Watson v. State, 71 Ark.App. 52 (2000) (noting lack of repeal and harmony between statutes)
- State v. L.P., 369 Ark. 21 (2007) (legislative awareness of prior acts; presumption of continued viability)