State v. HardimanState v. Hardiman
Lead Opinion
Appellee Mariea Ann Hardiman was charged with numerous drug offenses and, following a bench trial, she was found guilty of simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance. After a sentencing hearing on January 14, 2002, the trial court sentenced Hardiman to ten years on each conviction, to be served concurrently, but the court suspended seven years of each sentence. The State objected, arguing that the court was without authority to suspend any part of Hardiman’s sentence. The trial court overruled the State’s objection, and the State filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, arguing that Hardiman’s conviction of simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm constituted a Y felony, for which no part of a sentence may be suspended pursuant to
The State appeals pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. — Crim. 3(b) and (c), which authorizes review when the Attorney General, after inspecting the trial record, is satisfied that error has been committed to the prejudice of the State and that the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires such review. This court accepts appeals by the State when our holding would be important to the correct and uniform administration of Arkansas criminal law. Ark. R. App. P. — Crim. 3(c); see also State v. Stephenson,
In Arkansas, sentencing is entirely a matter of statute. See
In State v. Stephenson,
Stephenson is directly on point, and we therefore hold that the trial court committed error when it suspended seven years of Hardiman’s ten-year sentence. Accordingly, we must reverse and remand for imposition of a correct and legal sentence.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.- I concur with the majority’s decision. I agree that State v. Stephenson,
All three cases rely directly or indirectly on
However, Hardiman was charged not only with possession of drugs, which would be a violation of