{
  "id": 6136227,
  "name": "Mark WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. State",
  "decision_date": "2007-09-19",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 07-106",
  "first_page": "14",
  "last_page": "17",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "100 Ark. App. 14"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "262 S.W.3d 628"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-403",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 Ark. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3032996
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "208"
        },
        {
          "page": "820"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/364/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-97-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.W.3d 331",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1257811,
        1257756
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0864-01",
        "/ark/341/0803-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 864",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257811
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "875"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0864-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 3881,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29653427670879656
    },
    "sha256": "119856c19573080f07920f040b902d644765b3941359dadcac783f168315f6cb",
    "simhash": "1:a75b6af966c61f5e",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:18.034517+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Gladwin and Griffen, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Mark WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge.\nMark Wilson pled guilty to four drug-related offenses. In exchange for his plea, the State withdrew the habitual-offender enhancement that it had included in the information. Despite the fact that the State was no longer attempting to prove that Wilson was a habitual criminal, at the sentencing hearing the State introduced evidence relating to Wilson\u2019s four prior convictions \u2014 violation of the Arkansas hot-check law, fraudulent use of a credit card, theft by receiving, and theft by deception. On appeal, Wilson argues that the trial court erred by allowing evidence of his criminal history during sentencing. We disagree and affirm.\nWe will reverse a sentencing decision only if the defendant can show that he was prejudiced by the erroneously admitted evidence. Buckley v. State, 341 Ark. 864, 875, 20 S.W.3d 331, 339 (2000). Evidence relevant to sentencing may be introduced at the sentencing hearing, including prior \u201cconvictions of the defendant, both felony and misdemeanor.\u201d See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-97-103 (Repl. 2006). However, section 16-97-104 (Repl. 2006) mandates that \u201c[p]roof of prior convictions, both felony and misdemeanor, and proof of juvenile adjudications shall follow the procedures outlined in \u00a7\u00a7 5-4-502 \u2014 5-4-504.\u201d Sections 5-4-502 through -504 (Repl. 2006 and Supp. 2006) explain how prior convictions are to be considered in sentencing and what type of evidence is required to prove prior convictions.\nWilson argues that the trial court\u2019s decision to permit the State to introduce evidence relating to his prior convictions violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-97-103 and that he was prejudicially denied the benefit he was promised in exchange for his plea. Specifically, he alleges that when these two statutes are read together it becomes \u201cclear that the legislature intend (sic) that prior convictions only be submitted to the jury where there is an allegation of habitual status.\u201d Unfortunately, the interpretation advanced by Wilson ignores the fact that section 16-97-104 specifically includes juvenile adjudications and misdemeanor convictions, which are not implicated in a habitual-offender context.\nTo construe the statute as applying only to sentencing in habitual-offender cases would violate our canons of statutory interpretation. As our supreme court mandates, we do not construe penal statutes so strictly as to reach absurd consequences that are contrary to legislative intent. Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203, 208, 217 S.W.3d 817, 820 (2005). As such, we hold that the trial court\u2019s decision to permit the introduction of evidence relating to Wilson\u2019s criminal history during the sentencing phase of his trial is consistent with the mandates of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-97-103.\nFurthermore, contrary to Wilson\u2019s assertion otherwise, he did receive the benefit of his plea bargain, and the court did not \u201cgo beyond the scope\u201d of the information. At sentencing, Wilson was subjected to the normal ranges of Class A and Y felonies as opposed to the enhanced ranges designated for habitual offenders. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-401(a)(l) (Repl. 2006). Wilson actually received the minimum sentences allowed on two of his four convictions and less than the maximum on the other two. Also, his sentences were ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively, as they could have. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-403 (Repl. 2006). As such, Wilson has not only failed to establish a threshold evidentiary error supporting reversal, but he has also failed to show that he suffered prejudice during sentencing.\nWe affirm.\nGladwin and Griffen, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James P. Clouette, for appellant.",
      "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mark WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 07-106\n262 S.W.3d 628\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 19, 2007\nJames P. Clouette, for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0014-01",
  "first_page_order": 42,
  "last_page_order": 45
}