Thompson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 158
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Aronde Thompson pled no contest to third-degree domestic battering (Class A misdemeanor) and fleeing (Class C misdemeanor) in July 2015.
- Original disposition: 12 months’ probation for the Class A charge and 20 days in jail for both charges, to run concurrently; the record also shows 28 days’ jail credit and an assertion that the jail sentence had been executed.
- Probation conditions required completion of a domestic-violence program and prohibition on committing crimes punishable by imprisonment.
- The State filed a revocation petition alleging a new third-degree domestic-battering offense and failure to complete domestic-violence classes; plea and revocation proceedings occurred in April–May 2016.
- At revocation sentencing the trial court accepted the presentence recommendation and imposed: 12 months’ imprisonment on the Class A misdemeanor (apparently in addition to the prior 20-day jail order) and 30 days’ jail on the Class C misdemeanor.
- Thompson appealed, arguing the trial court (1) failed to give proper credit for previously ordered jail time, rendering the total sentence illegal, and (2) lacked jurisdiction to impose additional jail time on the Class C fleeing charge at revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by entering 12 months’ imprisonment plus prior jail time without showing the prior confinement was a probation condition | The court failed to credit 20 days (and/or 28 days credited in record), resulting in a sentence exceeding the statutory 12‑month cap for a Class A misdemeanor | (Implicit) original sentencing was valid or issue moot | Reversed: original sentence was illegal on its face because the 20‑day confinement was not shown to be a condition of probation; remanded for corrected sentence and credit for prior jail time |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to impose 30 days’ jail on the Class C fleeing charge at probation revocation | The court lacked jurisdiction to impose additional jail because there was no probation to revoke on the fleeing charge | The State argued the issue was moot because the sentence had been executed | Reversed: appellate review allowed; because no probation existed for the Class C charge, the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the 30‑day sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009) (defining illegal sentence as one a trial court lacked authority to impose)
- Donaldson v. State, 302 S.W.3d 622 (Ark. App. 2009) (mootness doctrine and appellate review principles)
- Thompson v. State, 503 S.W.3d 62 (Ark. 2016) (holding that mootness does not bar direct appeal from a misdemeanor conviction even after sentence served)