Woodson v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 02 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 302 Ark. 10,786 S.W.2d 120 |
| Parties | Larry WOODSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 90-25. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Val P. Price, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Sandra Bailey Moll, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, who has three (3) prior convictions, was caught in possession of a pistol. Subsequently, he was charged with, and convicted of, being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was found guilty and sentenced as an habitual offender. The Court of Appeals certified the case to us. We affirm.
At trial, the court ruled that the State could use appellant's prior conviction to prove the first element of the crime (that appellant was a felon), and then allowed the State to use the same prior conviction to enhance appellant's punishment as an habitual offender. Appellant argues that the ruling erroneously allows "double-counting" and is contra to Johnson v. State, 26 Ark.App. 286, 764 S.W.2d 621 (1989).
The ruling does not allow double-counting of one offense so that the proscription against double jeopardy is violated. The appellant was convicted of only one offense, not two. The punishment for that one offense was then enhanced under the habitual offender statute. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-501 (1987). Such does not constitute a prohibited form of double-counting.
The case of Johnson v. State, supra, does not offer appellant any relief as that case involves the firearm-enhancement statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-505 (1987), which expressly provides that no penalty shall be enhanced for employing a firearm to commit the offense when the offense itself involves the use of a firearm. The habitual offender statute at issue in this case does not contain a similar provision.
Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in counting his prior felonies by counting one conviction for burglary and theft and a second one for forgery. He contends both should have counted as only one conviction. The trial court counted correctly.
Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-501 provides in pertinent part:
5-4-501. Habitual offenders--Sentencing for felony.
. . . . .
(c) For the purpose of determining whether a defendant has previously been convicted or found guilty of two (2) or more felonies, a conviction or finding of guilt of burglary and of the felony that was the object of the burglary shall be considered a single felony conviction or finding of guilt.
The statute could not be worded more clearly. Under its terms, it is only necessary to examine the judgment of conviction in order to determine what felony was the object of the burglary. Beyond that, no proof from either party is necessary. Here, an examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ramirez
...People v. Baird, 12 Cal.4th 126, 906 P.2d 1220, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 65 (1995); Gholston v. State, 620 So.2d 719 (Ala.1993); Woodson v. State, 302 Ark. 10, 786 S.W.2d 120 (1990); Woods v. State, 471 N.E.2d 691 (Ind.1984); People v. Bergstrom, 190 Colo. 105, 544 P.2d 396 (1975); Bailleaux v. Gladd......
-
Bunch v. State
...State v. Freeman, 312 Ark. 34, 846 S.W.2d 660 (1993); McKillion v. State, 306 Ark. 511, 815 S.W.2d 936 (1991); Woodson v. State, 302 Ark. 10, 786 S.W.2d 120 (1990); Hart v. State, 301 Ark. 200, 783 S.W.2d 40 (1990). This court has reasoned that the word "may" in the recidivist statute indic......
-
State v. Wardell
...sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act just like any other person who has multiple felony convictions); Woodson v. State (1990), 302 Ark. 10, 786 S.W.2d 120, 120 (affirming trial court's ruling that the State could use appellant's prior conviction to prove the first element of the......
-
State v. Joslin
...supra; State v. Freeman, 312 Ark. 34, 846 S.W.2d 660 (1993); McKillion v. State, 306 Ark. 511, 815 S.W.2d 936 (1991); Woodson v. State, 302 Ark. 10, 786 S.W.2d 120 (1990); Hart v. State, 301 Ark. 200, 783 S.W.2d 40 In support of the point of error raised on appeal, the State cites State v. ......