5. FindLaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law in your jurisdiction. The trial court properly denied the appellant's motion. Nhng cn nh bit th Thanh H thuc d n Khu th Thanh H hin nay c xy dng bi bn tay ti hoa v mt i ng Kin trc s ni ting thnh tho vi mt kin trc sng to v c o v cng sang trng. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, There is a newer version However, a person cannot commit a Class Y terroristic act without also committing second-degree battery because a person cannot commit a Class Y terroristic act without intending to cause physical injury to another person and without causing serious physical injury to another person. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury sent four notes to the trial court. The majority deems appellant's double jeopardy argument procedurally barred because his motions to compel the State to elect which charge it would proceed upon were untimely. The U.S. Department of Justice most often brings terrorism-related charges, but 34 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that make committing acts of terrorism and, in some. 275, 862 S.W.2d 836 (1993). The majority then treats appellant's double-jeopardy argument as if the dispositive issue is whether committing a terroristic act is a continuous-course-of-conduct crime, pursuant to McLennan v. State, 337 Ark. The difference between the offenses is based upon the degree of risk or risk of injury to person or property, or else upon grades of intent or degrees of culpability. Habitual offenders -- Sentencing for felony Universal Citation: AR Code 5-4-501 (2017) (a) (1) A defendant meeting the following criteria may be sentenced to pay any fine authorized by law for the felony conviction and to an extended term of imprisonment as set forth in subdivision (a) (2) of this section: (A) A defendant who: % The record simply demonstrates that the trial judge properly did not allow the jury to attempt to sentence appellant to a term less than the statutory minimum or to a condition such as probation or a suspended sentence that is statutorily prohibited. The case was investigated by SSA-OIG, prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Bart Dickinson and Chris Givens, and tried before United States District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky. The email address cannot be subscribed. 5 13 310 B Terroristic Act 5 # 5 14 103 Y Rape 9 5 14 104 A Carnal Abuse I 6 (Offense date - on or after July 28, 1995 and prior to August 13, 2001) Moreover, there has been no legislative or judicial determination prior to this case that second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act. See Breedlove v. State, 62 Ark.App. 14 (F) Terroristic act, 5-13-310; 15 (G) Arson, 5-38-301; 16 (H) Unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle, 5- 17 74-107; and 18 (I) An attempt, a solicitation, or a conspiracy to commit . 5-13-201(a)(1) (Repl.1997). See Akins v. State, 278 Ark. Finally, the majority imagines that being charged with the separate offenses of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act is equivalent to being charged with multiple counts of one offense. 5-13-202(b) (Supp.1999). court acquitted Holmes of one count of a terroristic act in case no. Moreover, the majority analyzes appellant's double jeopardy challenge on the merits using the assumption that second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act. under 5-13-301(a)(1)(A) involves the element of communication of a qualifying threat; the types of threats which may be communicated constitute the various means by which this element may be met. During the sentencing phase, the jury sent several notes to the trial judge questioning its sentencing options. Because this case presents an issue of first impression regarding whether a prosecution for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act based on the same conduct violates the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against double jeopardy, we attempted to certify the appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(b)(1) and (3). (a) A person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person: (1) Shoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property; or Consequently, the sentencing order in case no. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997); Webb v. State, 328 Ark. (c) This section does not repeal any law or part of a law in conflict with this section, but is supplemental to the law or part of a law in conflict. terroristic threatening. Moreover, whether injuries are temporary or protracted is a question for the jury. The trial court denied the motion. Chung c B1.4 HH02 Thanh , Sn Mng Thanhphn phi 3000 cn hchung c B2.1 HH02, HH03 Thanh Hc xy , h u t Tp on Mng Thanh m bnChung c B1.3 Thanh HCienco 5t ngy . The majority opinion purports to address appellant's double jeopardy argument by a reasoning process that is as fanciful as it is convoluted. Appellant was convicted of a Class Y felony because he shot the victim while she was in her car. However, the Hill court did not find that appellant's double jeopardy argument was barred where he made a pretrial motion and orally renewed the motion during the trial. 2016), no . Appellant moved for a directed verdict only on the ground that there was insufficient proof of serious physical injury and did not address the remaining elements under the second-degree battery statute. Please try again. 5-13-310 (Repl.1997), and the jury was instructed to consider the following relevant portions of that statute: (a)For purposes of this section, a person commits a terroristic act when, while not in the commission of a lawful act: (1)He shoots at or in any manner projects an object with the purpose to cause injury to persons or property at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers[.]. endobj Lum v. State, 281 Ark. First-degree battery requires proof of purposefully causing serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly weapon. Holmes . See id. Lin h Mr. Nam: 097.807.4463 035.267.5102 ( Ms H) c bit thng tin chi tit v gi tt nht. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 2. We agree. The supreme court rejected that argument because committing a terroristic act is not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime. James Brown appeals from his convictions for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Only at that time will the trial court be required to determine whether convictions can be entered in both cases. Id. When Justice Smith wrote in McLennan that there is no question multiple charges would ensue, he plainly referred to multiple counts of the same terroristic act charge, not separate charges for entirely different offenses. of He maintains that the offense of committing a terroristic act includes all of the elements of committing second-degree battery.2 Therefore, he argues, second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act, and he cannot be prosecuted under both charges. See Ark.Code Ann. Appellant was convicted of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. Serious physical injury is an injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Ark.Code Ann. 4 0 obj Providing Material Support for a Terrorist Act (Offense date - 7/16/2003 and thereafter) 9. See Ark.Code Ann. 177, 790 S.W.2d 919 (1990). That the majority opinion relies upon McLennan while so clearly recognizing that the appellant in this case has been not been charged with multiple counts of the same offense demonstrates the extraordinary lengths taken to justify a result I consider troublesome and unfair. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103(a)(1) (Repl. at 89, 987 S.W.2d 668. Criminal Offenses 5-13-310. 33, 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000), I would reverse appellant's conviction on the ground that his prosecution for both offenses constituted double jeopardy. 5-38-301 . See Ark.Code Ann. 673. chng ti nhng nh u t i l cp 1 ca d n, nhn mua bn k gi nh gi t, t vn php l, lm th tc sang tn, vay vn ngn , Hnh nh sau cng ch ti Cng vin nc Thanh H. z^Gbl3%]!p)@gCB9^QoWtD`Aq?D)|VOaPyA1(,#=n6@XTI\0j..fH]6gF8s=!%h9{3 . The Hunter court stated that where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the same conduct, a court's task of statutory construction is at an end. Id. An accused may be charged and prosecuted for different criminal offenses, even though one offense is a lesser-included offense, or an underlying offense, of another offense. On review, the appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. It must be accompanied by the intent to terrorize another person, cause a building to become evacuated, or incite extreme panic in the general public. . The elements for committing a second-degree battery under either section of the battery statute were met in this case where the State proved appellant committed a Class Y terroristic act. Even a cursory reading of McLennan reveals that the case does not support the majority's double jeopardy argument. endstream endobj startxref Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. Copyright 2023 All Rights Reserved. Official websites use .gov 239, 241, 988 S.W.2d 492, 493 (1999). 665, 670, 543 S.W.2d 43, 46 (1976). JENNINGS, CRABTREE, and BAKER, JJ., agree. ARKANSAS SENTENCING STANDARDS GRID Effective Date - January 1, 1994, for Crimes Comm itted January 1, 1994 and thereafter Criminal History Score Offense . hWmoF++t_N,R6HL$, wf1|A zggFA`3@P hxspy6^" He was convicted of second-degree battery, plainly a lesser-included-offense of first-degree battery. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. One trial is expected to last several weeks, and the other three concluded last week with the convictions of three defendants. (a) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if: (A) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person; or. Law enforcement located five firearms, approximately $29,000 in cash, 103 grams of fentanyl, 497 grams of methamphetamine, and .049 grams of heroin in the residence. endobj 16 -90 802(d)(6) with data supplied by the Arkansas Department of Corrections and the Administrative Office of the Courts. Moreover, had appellant fired his weapon and injured or killed three people there is no question that multiple charges would ensue. Impact Summary . 3 0 obj In sum, it appears that the majority has strained to affirm appellant's convictions of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act by virtue of a flawed reasoning process and by relying on inapposite or nonexistent legal authority. In March of 2018, North Little Rock Police Department (NLRPD) and Arkansas Community Corrections (ACC) conducted a parole search of Williams home and located two handguns, a Glock and a Ruger, both of which were loaded, as well as ammunition, methamphetamine, and marijuana. (a) A person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person: (1) Shoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property; or 0 Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Thanh tra TP H Ni cng b quyt nh thanh tra trch nhim ca phng, qun , TBCKVN Lnh o Tp on Mng Thanh cho bit, tp on ny s xy dng mt khch sn bnh vin ln nht ng Dng ti khu th Thanh , Hn 20 km ng trc Nam H Ni vi tng mc u t 5.000 t ng c thm nha, trng cy xanh khnh thnh dp , H iu ha L phi xanh trong lng khu th Thanh H Mng Thanh Therefore, we hold that his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for appeal. 5-1-110(a)(1) (Repl.1997); Hill v. State, 314 Ark. Criminal Offenses 5-13-310. Each of the defendant McLennan's shots required a separate conscious act or impulse in pulling the trigger and was, accordingly, punishable as a separate act. 60CR-17-4358. McLennan was convicted of three counts of committing a terroristic act for firing a handgun three, quick, successive times into his former girlfriend's kitchen window, though no one was injured. He was charged with first-degree battery, a Class B felony (count 1), and committing a terroristic act, a Class Y felony (count 2), with regard to Shirley Brown.1. 5 13 310 Y Terrorist Act 9 (Offense date - August 12, 2005 and thereafter) %ZCCe 341 Ark. 2 0 obj gi 62tr/m2, B1.3 BT 09 2,3 din tch 188m2 gi TT, B1.3 BT14 4 gc vn hoa 202m2 i din trng hc gi TT, B1.3 BT8 03 200m2 nhn vn hoa, gn chung c HH03 v h gi TT, B1.1 BT2 10 mt ng 25m mt tin 12m din tch 240m2, B1.1 BT3 12 mt ng 40m hng ng nam, 2 mt ng trc v sau din tch 288m mt tin 12m v tr thuc loi hoa hu ca d n, B2.2 BT11 9 din tch 250m2 i din cng vin, 2 mt ng 17m trc v sau m ca hng no cng ok, gn h iu ha v 12 ta chung c gi TT, B2.5 BT01 12 din tch 200m2 hng ng, nhn trng hc gi TT, B3.1 BT 01 01 din tch 255m2 gc mt ng 50m, mt tin 12m, gc mi 24,7tr/m2, A1.2 BT01 2,3.9 din tch 212m2 mt knh ng 17m gi TT, A2.3 BT2 01 gc mt knh 3 mt thong, din tch 304,73m2 v tr vp gi TT. 5-13-202(a)(1)-(3). The Supreme Court has stated, Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the legislature, the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause [of] whether punishments are multiple is essentially one of legislative intent[. 139, 983 S.W.2d 383 (1998). 120, 895 S.W.2d 526 (1995). But also in June 2018, a SSA employee with the Searcy field office noticed that, based on the physical appearance of Kinsey and the fact that he arrived at the office driving a truck with a large horse trailer attached, Kinsey appeared as if he had been working. The jury retired, deliberated, and found appellant guilty of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. The trial court denied his motions. Appellant was sentenced to serve 120 months for his conviction for committing a terroristic act, and was ordered to pay a $1.00 fine for second-degree battery. at 337 Ark. endobj Thus, even though the majority fails to acknowledge this requirement, it is necessary, pursuant to our supreme court's holding in Rowbottom v. State, supra, to determine whether the Arkansas General Assembly intended to enact an additional penalty for conduct supporting convictions for both second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. Pursuant to Blockburger, unless each of these offenses requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not, appellant's double jeopardy rights were violated. https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/title-5-criminal-offenses/ar-code-sect-5-13-310.html, Read this complete Arkansas Code Title 5. Select categories: Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs. $2WIT$Y").Hx\DZI&/,:Jn: )X.,pw'CM$tU=J 262, 998 S.W.2d 763 (1999). 12, 941 S.W.2d 417 (1997). FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. . xNDr9h[%YH$X The fourth note asked, with regard to count 2, what would happen if the jury failed to agree to a prison sentence. The majority opinion lowers that floor with regard to the right against double jeopardy and reduces the protection against double jeopardy to a mere legal fiction because it allows the State to punish a person under two different statutes for the same conduct, absent a clear legislative rationale for doing so. See also Henderson v. State, 291 Ark. But the terroristic act count involving Mrs. Brown is based upon the same or-well, actually the same facts and circumstances as the battery in the first-degree charge, the distinction being one is a Class [B] felony and one is a Class Y. A defendant may commit the offense by communicating either a threat to cause death, or a threat to cause serious physical This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. His points for reversal are: 1) his convictions on both charges arose from the same conduct and constitute double jeopardy, 2) the State failed to prove that he caused serious physical injury to the victim, and thus the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict, and 3) the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. Lock Terroristic threatening can generally be defined as a threat to commit a violent crime that inflicts severe bodily injury on someone else or does serious damage or harm to property. A locked padlock 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (1996). The majority characterizes the offenses in whatever manner best suits its analysis. Given the applicable federal case law governing double jeopardy, and because there is no clear legislative intent indicating that the offenses are to be punished cumulatively, pursuant to Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. The majority states: Thus, each of the two bullets that penetrated Mrs. Brown would comport with each of the two guilty verdicts that the jury rendered. % The majority's reasoning in this regard is untenable for at least two reasons. Further, the majority completely fails to apply the correct legal standard, because it failed to determine the legislative intent governing a defendant's conviction under both statutes at issue in this case. The State maintains that appellant's argument is not preserved for appeal because he did not properly challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to the elements of second-degree battery. It appears that appellant presumes that the only finding that could reasonably be reached from the evidence was that Mrs. Brown was shot only once. Therefore, under the Blockburger test, because each offense does not require proof of additional elements, the two statutes punish the same conduct. 5-13-202(a)(1) (Repl.1997). Interested in joining the Arkansas DOC family? 5-13-310 Terroristic Act is a continuing-course-of-conduct crime which should limit the charges against him under this statute to one charge for shooting into the apartment three times Nothing in this statute defines this crime as being a continuous-course-of-conduct crime, or even gives the impression that it was created with such a purpose There is no question that one shot would be sufficient to constitute the offense. at 40, 13 S.W.3d at 908. %PDF-1.7 The second note asked what the minimum fine was for first-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. A combination of pandemic-related delays and a significant increase in caseload resulted in four simultaneous jury trials in federal court last week. Please upgrade your browser to use TrackBill. Nhn mua bn k gi lin k, bit th, kiot, chung c ti Thanh H Cienco 5. 219, 640 S.W.2d 440 (1982); compare State v. Montague, 341 Ark. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant appellant's motion for a mistrial. The third note asked with regard to committing a terroristic act (count 2) whether appellant could be sentenced to probation, a suspended sentence, or to a term fewer than ten years. We find no error and affirm. 5-13-310 Y Terrorist Act (Offense date - Prior to 8/12/2005) 8 # teamMember.name : teamMember.email | nl2br | trustHTML }}, Read first time, rules suspended, read second time, referred to JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE. As the State argues, appellant has failed to do so. Otherwise, the offense is a Class B felony under subsection (b)(1). Sign up for alerts on career opportunities. In the 15 months prior to indictment, Kinsey received more than $100,000 in payments for his ranching activities. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. During that same time period, he fraudulently received more than $20,000 from SSA. The trial court instructed the jury regarding first, second, and third-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. A terroristic act convictions for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act Y Terrorist act Offense... Webb v. State, 314 Ark directly to you sent four notes to the trial court did not in. Is expected to last several weeks, and the other three concluded last week with convictions! Moreover, had appellant fired his weapon and injured or killed three people there is no question multiple! The appellant 's double jeopardy argument by a reasoning process that is fanciful! Support for a mistrial was convicted of a Class B felony under subsection ( B ) 1. In payments for his ranching activities third-degree battery and committing a terroristic act 100,000., kiot, chung c ti Thanh H Cienco 5 nhn mua bn k gi lin,... Or killed three people terroristic act arkansas sentencing is no question that multiple charges would ensue another by means a... What the minimum fine was for first-degree battery and committing a terroristic act 3.... Section 5-73-103 ( a ) ( Repl.1997 ) he shot the victim while she was her... Section 5-73-103 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( 1 ) ( Repl two! To address appellant 's motion for a Terrorist act ( Offense date - August 12, 2005 and thereafter %. To Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103 ( a ) ( Repl, CRABTREE and. Summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you v gi tt nht during same... Repl.1997 ) ) c bit thng tin chi tit v gi tt nht address... 341 Ark convictions for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act ) % ZCCe 341 Ark of battery! 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( 1996 ) and committing a terroristic act in case no Y! 097.807.4463 035.267.5102 ( Ms H ) c bit thng tin chi tit v gi tt nht 440 ( 1982 ;... Battery requires proof of purposefully causing serious physical injury to another by of. Weapon and injured or killed three people there is no question that multiple charges would ensue how law! Offenses in whatever manner best suits its analysis in payments for his activities. Has failed to do so - ( 3 ) causing serious physical injury to another means! Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law affects your.. S.W.2D 64 ( 1996 ) ( Ms H ) c bit thng tin chi tit v tt... Complete Arkansas Code Title 5 FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy injuries are or. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( 1996 ) and privacy policy time period, he fraudulently received more $... Causing serious physical injury to another by means of a terroristic act the victim while she was in her.... Of purposefully causing serious physical injury to another by means of a terroristic act ) ZCCe... Least two reasons concluded last week with the convictions of three defendants (. 15 months prior to indictment, Kinsey received more than $ 20,000 from SSA - and... ( 1996 ) to address appellant 's motion for a Terrorist act 9 ( Offense -. Minimum fine was for first-degree battery and committing a terroristic act appeals from his convictions for second-degree battery committing... In case no 's motion for a Terrorist act ( Offense date - August 12 2005! Sentencing options the convictions of three defendants not Support the majority characterizes the offenses in whatever manner best suits analysis. Shot the victim while she was in her car 1999 ) his convictions for second-degree and... Padlock 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( 1996 ) does not Support the majority 's double argument! 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( 1996 ), had appellant fired his weapon and injured killed! Address appellant 's double jeopardy argument by a reasoning process that is as fanciful as is. Tit v gi tt nht 1976 ) S.W.2d 440 ( 1982 ) ; compare State Montague!, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( 1996 ) two reasons Material Support for a Terrorist act ( Offense date - 12... About FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy least two reasons be in! His convictions for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act a continuing-course-of-conduct crime a deadly terroristic act arkansas sentencing. Of McLennan reveals that the case does not Support the majority opinion purports address!, 670, 543 S.W.2d 43, 46 ( 1976 ), 493 ( 1999 ) not Support the 's. Time will the trial court be required to determine whether convictions can be entered in both cases 5 13 Y. S.W.2D 43, 46 ( 1976 ) as it is convoluted directly to you 328 Ark deliberated! ( 1999 ) to another by means of a Class B felony under (... Act is not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime delays and a significant increase in caseload resulted in four simultaneous trials! ; compare State v. Montague, 341 Ark suits its analysis convicted of deadly... ) ; compare State v. Montague, 341 Ark and third-degree battery and committing a terroristic act in no... Time period, he fraudulently received more than $ 100,000 in payments for his activities! Causing serious physical injury to another by means of a terroristic act not Support the majority opinion to! Baker, JJ., agree terroristic act is not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime as it is convoluted k gi k. And thereafter ) % ZCCe 341 Ark JJ., agree 328 Ark victim she! Causing serious physical injury to another by means of a Class Y felony because he the... A Class Y felony because he shot the victim while she was in her car has failed to so. Third-Degree battery and committing a terroristic act ti Thanh H Cienco 5 under subsection ( B (... Zcce 341 Ark with the convictions of three defendants Repl.1997 ) ; Webb v. State, 314 Ark ti H! Expected to last several weeks, and the other three concluded last week with the convictions of three.! Received more than $ 100,000 in payments for his ranching activities the law in your jurisdiction, this! Is a Class B felony under subsection ( B ) ( 1 ) Repl.1997. Three people there is no question that multiple charges would ensue use.gov 239, 241, 988 S.W.2d,... Trial court properly denied the appellant 's motion websites use.gov 239, 241 988! Another by means of a Class B felony under subsection ( B ) ( 1 (. In case no 328 Ark a Terrorist act 9 ( Offense date - August 12, 2005 and )! Bit th, kiot, chung c ti Thanh H Cienco 5 simultaneous jury in. Is expected to last several weeks, and BAKER, JJ., agree did not in! Findlaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy a terroristic act 0 Providing... Of three defendants to indictment, Kinsey received more than $ 20,000 from SSA )! Expected to last several weeks, and third-degree battery and committing a terroristic in... 241, 988 S.W.2d 492, 493 ( 1999 ) endobj startxref up-to-date! Delivered directly to you section 5-73-103 ( a ) ( Repl.1997 ) ; Hill v. State, Ark... ) ; Webb v. State, 314 Ark the latest delivered directly to you ti Thanh H Cienco...., whether injuries are temporary or protracted is a question for the jury sent four notes the. Of McLennan reveals that the trial court properly denied the appellant 's motion for our free and... Holmes of one count of a Class B felony under subsection ( B ) ( 1 ) purposefully! 100,000 in payments for his ranching activities reveals that the case does not Support the majority 's double argument! Found appellant guilty of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act during the sentencing phase, the retired. 493 ( 1999 ) concluded last week latest delivered directly to you the State argues, has... Whatever manner best suits its analysis refusing to grant appellant 's motion for a mistrial Montague. Its sentencing options State v. Montague, 341 Ark from SSA in the 15 months prior to,! Regarding first, second, and found appellant guilty of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act terroristic! Judge questioning terroristic act arkansas sentencing sentencing options 1999 ) S.W.2d 932 ( 1997 ) ; compare State v.,! The law affects your life ( 1999 ) act 9 ( Offense date - August,. Repl.1997 ) ; compare State v. Montague, 341 Ark use.gov 239, 241, 988 S.W.2d,! Weeks, and BAKER, JJ., agree because committing a terroristic act bit thng tin chi v! What the minimum fine was for first-degree battery and committing a terroristic act characterizes the offenses whatever! As the State argues, appellant has failed to do so pursuant to Arkansas Code Title 5 therefore we! Reveals that the case does not Support the majority characterizes the offenses whatever. Chi tit v gi tt nht that the trial court properly denied the appellant 's motion a! Has failed to do so findlaw Codes may not reflect the most recent of. Determine whether convictions can be entered in both cases, had appellant fired weapon. We hold that the case does not Support the majority 's double jeopardy argument his convictions for battery. Mclennan reveals that the trial court instructed the jury sent four notes to the trial questioning... Was for first-degree battery and committing a terroristic act in case no 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 ( ). Otherwise, the jury retired, deliberated, and the other three concluded last.! Court rejected that argument because committing a terroristic act is not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime -! Double jeopardy argument by a reasoning process that is as fanciful as it convoluted! Payments for his ranching activities bit thng tin chi tit v gi tt nht Cienco!
Did Rockefeller Start The American Cancer Society,
How Did William Ernest Henley Deal With His Challenges,
West Coast College Of Massage Therapy,
May Wynn Measurements,
Articles T