Walden v. State
2014 Ark. 193
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Walden appeals a probation-revocation order in Sebastian County sentencing him to 14 years’ imprisonment plus eight years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS), to run consecutively.
- Original sentences stem from three cases: CR2004-087 (felony hot-check), CR2004-088 (second-degree forgery), and CR2012-470 (possession of drug paraphernalia).
- For the first two cases, Walden received 36 months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ SIS; upon revocation those were followed by 36 months more imprisonment and 48 months’ SIS.
- In 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Walden’s suspended sentences; the circuit court then imposed 14 years’ imprisonment for hot-check with two 48-month SIS to run consecutively, totaling 14 years’ imprisonment and eight years’ SIS.
- Walden argues the revocation sentence is illegal because it exceeds the maximum allowed after accounting for prior served time and because SIS should run concurrently, not consecutively.
- The Supreme Court affirmatively modifies the SIS to run concurrently with each other and with the imprisonment, but affirms the 14-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence is illegal due to maximum-imposed limits. | Walden contends eight years max after credits applies. | Walden argues for eight years plus concurrent SIS. | Sentence upheld for imprisonment; SIS modified for concurrency. |
| Whether multiple suspended sentences can run consecutively to each other. | Walden claims consecutive SIS against §5-4-307(b)(1) is improper. | State asserts possible consecutive SIS under statute. | SIS cannot run consecutively to each other; must run concurrently. |
| Whether suspended sentences may run concurrently with a term of imprisonment for a different offense. | Walden argues no authority to run SIS against a different charge concurrently. | State relies on §5-4-307(b)(2) and §5-4-309(f). | SIS may run concurrently with imprisonment for a different offense. |
| Whether the court could order consecutive running of SIS with the imprisonment for the hot-check offense. | Walden contends original concurrent terms barred consecutive SIS on revocation. | State argues authority to order consecutive aspects under statutes. | Court prohibited consecutive SIS to imprisonment from different offenses; corrected to concurrent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Webb, 373 Ark. 65 (2008) (illegal sentence review when jurisdiction is questioned)
- Moseley v. State, 349 Ark. 589 (2002) (trial court may modify probation with revocation within statutory limits)
- Gates v. State, 353 Ark. 333 (2003) (Act 1569 limitations on modifications during revocation)
- Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335 (2003) (proper scope to modify sentences during revocation; avoid absurd results)
- Seamster v. State, 2009 Ark. 258 (2009) (suspended sentence runs concurrently with imprisonment; revocation jurisdiction)
- Donaldson v. State, 370 Ark. 3 (2007) (sentencing must conform to statute in effect at time of crime)
- Searcy Farm Supply, LLC v. Merchants & Planters Bank, 369 Ark. 487 (2007) (statutory construction prioritizes specific over general provisions)