Brad Eric Crawford v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE  DIVISION III  CACR07­446  BRAD ERIC CRAWFORD  APPELLANT  December 5, 2007  AN APPEAL FROM MISSISSIPPI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [CR2005­233; CR1999­399]  V.  HON. RALPH EDWIN WILSON, JR.,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Brad Crawford appeals from the revocation of his suspended sentence, arguing that  the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his suspended sentence because his period of  suspension had not begun.  We hold that there was no error because appellant’s period of  suspension began when he was paroled and because his sentence was revoked before the  period of suspension expired.  Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order.  I.  Facts  On October 11, 2000, appellant pled guilty to six counts of delivery of cocaine.  He  was sentenced to serve ten­and­one­half years in the Arkansas Department of Correction on  each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently.  Additionally, a ten­year suspended  sentence was imposed on each count to follow appellant’s prison term.  Although the date is not clear from the record, appellant was freed on parole and  began serving the suspended portions of his sentences.  On August 24, 2005, while on parole  and while under the terms of his suspended sentences, appellant was charged with the first­  degree murder and first­degree battery of Tommy Watson, Jr., which occurred on June 23, 2005.  Also on August 24, 2005, the State filed a motion to revoke the suspended portion of  appellant’s sentences for cocaine delivery.  The murder charge and revocation charge were tried concurrently.  A jury convicted  appellant of first­degree murder, and he was ordered to serve fifty­nine years in prison on  that charge.  Based on the evidence presented at the murder trial, the trial court immediately  thereafter revoked appellant’s suspended sentence due to his violation of state law.  The  court sentenced appellant to serve eight years in prison on each of the six possession counts,  totaling forty­eight years, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for murder.  II.  Jurisdiction to Revoke Suspended Sentence  Appellant’s  sole  argument  is  that  the  trial  court  lacked  jurisdiction  to  revoke  his  suspended sentence because his period of suspension would not commence until the date his  1  prison sentence would have ended had he not been released on parole.  We disagree, and  affirm the revocation of appellant’s suspended sentence.  Appellant’s single citation to authority is Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d  235 (2003).  However, Harness is inapposite to the facts of the instant case.  Like appellant,  the Harness defendant was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment to be followed by a  suspended sentence. Due to overcrowding, Harness was not immediately imprisoned.  When  he was finally ordered to surrender, he did not show.  He was subsequently apprehended in  another state and was returned to Arkansas.  The trial court thereafter revoked Harness’s  suspended sentence.  The Harness court determined that the trial court lacked the power to  revoke the suspended portion of Harness’s sentence prior to the commencement of his period  of suspension.  See also Stultz v. State, 92 Ark. App. 204, 212 S.W.3d 42 (2005). 1  Appellant erroneously asserts that his period of suspension would begin in 2020.  Appellant was sentenced in October 2000 to serve ten­and­one­half years in prison.  If he  had served the full sentence, he would have been released in 2011 and his period of  suspension would have commenced upon release.  2  By contrast, here there is no doubt that appellant’s period of suspension began when  he was paroled.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 16­93­101(1) (Repl. 2006) (defining “parole” as the  release of the prisoner into the community by the Parole Board prior to the expiration of his  prison term).  If a court sentences a defendant to a term of imprisonment and suspends the  imposition of sentence as to an additional term of imprisonment, the period of suspension  commences on the day the defendant is lawfully set at liberty from imprisonment.  See Ark.  Code Ann. § 5­4­307(c) (Repl. 2006); Vann v. State, 16 Ark. App. 199, 698 S.W.2d 814  (1985) (stating that the defendant's five­year suspended period of imprisonment commenced  to run on the date on which the defendant was paroled from penitentiary).  Thus, appellant’s  period of suspension began when he was released on parole, even though he remained a  parolee under the supervision of the Arkansas Department of Correction.  See, e.g., Billings  v.  State,  53  Ark.  App.  219,  921  S.W.2d  607  (1996)  (affirming  the  revocation  of  the  defendant’s parole and suspended sentence relating to the same offenses).  Finally, the trial court’s revocation was valid because it occurred before the ten­year  period of suspension expired.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 5­4­309(d) (Repl. 2006).  As the State  notes, even if appellant’s period of suspension began on October 11, 2000, the same day the  original judgment was entered against him, the judgment based on the revocation was entered  2  on October 4, 2006, well before the ten­year period of suspension expired.  Affirmed.  HART  and GLADWIN, JJ., agree. 2  We note that the judgment and conviction order that was entered following revocation  indicates that appellant was on probation when the offenses warranting revocation were  committed.  We further note that the judgment and conviction order for the murder  conviction indicates that appellant was on parole and probation when the murder was  committed.  However, the parties agree that appellant was on parole when the offenses  were committed, and it is clear that appellant was not on probation at that time because  he had served a term of imprisonment.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 16­93­101(2) (Repl. 2006)  (defining probation).  3  4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.