{ "id": 6136380, "name": "David A. BRAMUCCI v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Bramucci v. State", "decision_date": "2001-11-28", "docket_number": "CA CR 01-235", "first_page": "8", "last_page": "12", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "76 Ark. App. 8" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "62 S.W.3d 10" } ], "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 5-4-101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-307", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 505", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9161410 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0505-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-104", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)(l)(B)(ii)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 Ark. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721468 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" }, { "page": "489" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/257/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "336 Ark. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 51330 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" }, { "page": "99" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/336/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-309", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(f)(1)(A)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 Ark. 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1451136 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/320/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.W.3d 459", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ark. App. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6141172 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/72/0357-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 399, "char_count": 6607, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3171724843194224e-07, "percentile": 0.6257783754960231 }, "sha256": "337355be3743c66a898a59ccb4deab1a4b06288dc2eb3dc061358712ba8f9231", "simhash": "1:e9ed74ac529a7c86", "word_count": 1090 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:25.039079+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Vaught and Baker, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "David A. BRAMUCCI v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOSEPHINE LINKER Hart, Judge.\nAppellant, David Bramucci, appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence. Appellant argues that because his original sentence was illegal, the violation of the conditions of the suspension could not form the basis of the additional sentence imposed by the court. We disagree and affirm.\nAppellant entered a plea of guilty on January 9, 1996, to a charge of possession of a controlled substance, a Class C felony. The same day, the trial court entered an order styled, \u201cOrder of Probation or Suspending Imposition of Sentence, or Judgment and Commitment,\u201d sentencing appellant to \u201c10 years to be served at hard labor in the Department of Correction of which 8 years is suspended.\u201d On November 13, 2000, the State filed a petition to revoke the suspended sentence, and a hearing was held on November 28, 2000. The court determined that appellant had violated the conditions of his suspended sentence and sentenced him to an additional fifty-two months of incarceration. From that order comes this appeal.\nQuestions of law are reviewed under a de novo standard of review. See, e.g., Moses v. State, 72 Ark. App. 357, 395 S.W.3d 459 (2001). In Meadows v. State, 320 Ark. 686, 899 S.W.2d 72 (1995), our supreme court stated that sentencing in Arkansas is entirely a matter to be effected in accordance with the statute in effect at the time the crime was committed. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-104(e)(3) (Repl. 1997) provides that \u201cthe court may sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment and suspend imposition of sentence as to an additional term of imprisonment.\u201d Upon revocation, the court may, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-309(f)(1)(A) (Supp. 1999) \u201center a judgment of conviction and may impose any sentence on the defendant that might have been imposed originally for the offense of which he was found guilty.\u201d\nJudgments are generally construed in the same manner as other instruments. The determinative factor is the intention of the court, which is derived from the judgment and the record. Lewis v. State, 336 Ark. 469, 475, 986 S.W.2d 95, 99 (1999). The court in Lewis noted that \u201cit is to be presumed that a defendant has been accorded a fair trial, and that the judgment of conviction is valid.\u201d Id. Likewise, \u201cthere is a presumption of regularity attendant upon every judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.\u201d Coleman v. State, 257 Ark. 538, 541, 518 S.W.2d 487, 489 (1975). This strong presumption of validity applies to criminal convictions and sentences, which entitles them to every reasonable intendment in their favor. Id. Absent a contradictory showing, a presumption arises when a sentence is pronounced that the circuit court did its duty according to the statutes unless the court\u2019s failure to do so appears on the face of the judgment. Id.\nAppellant argues that his 1996 sentence was an illegal sentence because it suspended the execution of the sentence, which is prohibited by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-104(e)(l)(B)(ii). Thus, on revocation, the court could not sentence him to fifty-two months of imprisonment, but could only sentence him to the time remaining on his suspended sentence. See Meadows v. State, 324 Ark. 505, 922 S.W.2d (1996). The calculation of appellant\u2019s eight-year term is governed by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-307 (Repl. 1997), which provides, \u201cif the court sentences the defendant to a term of imprisonment and suspends imposition of sentence as to a term of imprisonment, the period of suspension commences to run on the day the defendant is lawfully set at liberty from the imprisonment.\u201d Appellant has failed to provide us with the exact date of his release from incarceration, and we are unable to determine the exact time that remains on the eight-year term. However, for the purpose of this opinion, we assume that the time remaining on the eight-year sentence is less than fifty-two months if the execution of the sentence was suspended.\nTo support his assertion that the sentence was a suspended execution as opposed to a suspended imposition of sentence, appellant points out that the form used by the court during sentencing did not contain the actual words \u201csuspended imposition\u201d in the fine used to sentence him. Instead the completed order provides, \u201csentenced to 10 years to be served at hard labor in the Department of Correction of which 8 years is suspended.\u201d He also notes that the fine on the form order containing the words \u201cimposition of sentence is suspended for_years\u201d was left blank. Relying heavily on these undisputed facts, appellant asserts that the court failed to fill in the appropriate blanks and to specifically designate that it was suspending the imposition of the sentence. Thus, the order provided for a suspended execution of the sentence as opposed to a suspended imposition of the sentence.\nIt is apparent that the court did not fill out the line specifically referencing suspended imposition of sentence. It is equally apparent that the line did not contain separate spaces for the time to be served and the time suspended. While the line that was filled out by the court refers only to \u201csuspended\u201d sentence, the document is titled an \u201cOrder of Probation or Suspending Imposition of Sentence, or Judgment and Commitment.\u201d Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-101 (l)(Supp. 1999) defines \u201csuspension\u201d and \u201csuspend imposition of sentence\u201d identically. Moreover, as was pointed out at the revocation hearing, a second judgment and commitment dated ten days after the original was prepared by the clerk\u2019s office and did contain the words \u201c8 YRS\u201d typed into the space under the subheading SIS (suspended imposition of sentence). Any confusion created by the original order dated January 9, 1996, was clarified by the judgment filed ten days later on January 19th, which included language specifying the number of years for the suspended imposition of sentence.\nBecause the sentencing court\u2019s intention is clearly reflected in the court\u2019s orders, we cannot agree with appellant that the sentencing was illegal. Therefore, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nVaught and Baker, JJ., agree.\nArk. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-101(1) states: \u201cSuspension\u201d or \u201csuspend imposition of sentence\u201d means a procedure whereby a defendant who pleads or is found guilty of an offense is released by the court without pronouncement of sentence and without supervision.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOSEPHINE LINKER Hart, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John W. Cone, for appellant.", "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Clayton K. Hodges, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "David A. BRAMUCCI v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 01-235\n62 S.W.3d 10\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered November 28, 2001\nJohn W. Cone, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by; Clayton K. Hodges, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0008-01", "first_page_order": 40, "last_page_order": 44 }