{ "id": 1880004, "name": "William G. DEATON v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Deaton v. State", "decision_date": "1984-06-25", "docket_number": "CR 84-22", "first_page": "79", "last_page": "81", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "283 Ark. 79" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "671 S.W.2d 175" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "395 U.S. 711", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1772134 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 Ark. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1755046 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "645 S.W.2d 950", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1748121, 1748076 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0394-01", "/ark/278/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 Ark. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1748121 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 Ark. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1748392 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0428-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 254, "char_count": 3318, "ocr_confidence": 0.844, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9611585305432054e-07, "percentile": 0.7380111736244083 }, "sha256": "dee22dd7e335ee00893263519de511060cc40b19b366fd902bd55cf2df6bbe3f", "simhash": "1:4bae0980167cbd05", "word_count": 559 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:00:41.772495+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William G. DEATON v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nThis case involves the interpretation of the criminal sentencing statutes of 1979. Jurisdiction is under Rule 29(1 )(c).\nOn September 11, 1979, the appellant, a youthful offender, committed the felony of theft by receiving a stolen pistol. He was charged and, on January 6, 1981, pleaded guilty. The judgment of conviction provides that he \u201cis sentenced to three (3) years probation . . \u201cis hereby committed to the Department of Correction or its authorized representative for a term of three years in the state penitentiary;\u201d and \u201cthe execution is hereby stayed for a period of three years.\u201d Thus, on January 6, 1981, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of three years imprisonment, suspended execution of the sentence and placed appellant on three years probation.\nThe statute in effect on the date of the crime governs the sentence. Article II, \u00a7 17 Const. of Ark.; Hunter v. State, 278 Ark. 428, 645 S.W.2d 954 (1983). The sentence must be in accordance with the statutes. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-803 (Repl. 1977); Cooper v. State, 278 Ark. 394, 645 S.W.2d 950 (1983). In this case the judge suspended the execution of the sentence which is a proceeding by which the term of imprisonment is fixed but the serving of that sentence is suspended conditioned upon the good behavior of the offender. In 1979, there was no statutory provision authorizing suspension of the execution of a sentence for an adult offender. McGee v. State, 271 Ark. 611, 609 S.W.2d 73 (1980). However, under the Youthful Offenders Alternative Service Act of 1975, which was in effect in 1979, a trial court could suspend either the imposition or the execution of the sentence and, in addition, place a youthful offender on probation. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2342 (a) (Repl. 1977 and Supp. 1979). Consequently, the first sentence was authorized for a youthful offender. Its term expired on January 6, 1984.\nOn April 15,1981, approximately three months after the first sentence, the trial court ordered that:\nDefendant\u2019s probation is revoked and Defendant is sentenced to the Department of Correction for Four years, Eight months, and twenty-one (21) days, and fine of $250.00 plus cost of $67.20 to date. That Defendant is being sentenced under Act 378 of 1975, and Defendant has consented to sentencing under provisions of said Act 378 of 1975 Section 4 (d).\nThe trial court should have revoked only the fixed term remaining on the suspended sentence. However, no appeal was taken. If the state attempts to enforce the sentence, the appellant must raise the matter in a post-conviction proceeding.\nOn August 12,1983, after a motion by the state, the trial court sentenced the appellant to an additional term of five years. This third sentence is the one now on appeal. It is reversed, set aside, and the appellant is ordered released on this sentence. A new sentence cannot be set at a revocation hearing. Easley v. State, 274 Ark. 215, 623 S.W.2d 189 (1981). \u201cA person need run the gauntlet only once. \u201d North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969).", "type": "majority", "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wright \u00e9r Chaney, P.A. by: Travis R. Berry, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Marci L. Talbot, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William G. DEATON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-22\n671 S.W.2d 175\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 25, 1984\nWright \u00e9r Chaney, P.A. by: Travis R. Berry, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Marci L. Talbot, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0079-01", "first_page_order": 101, "last_page_order": 103 }