Tina Stephens v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION II

TINA STEPHENS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-115

SEPTEMBER 27, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 98-200]

HONORABLE LANCE LAMAR HANSHAW, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A jury sitting in the Lonoke County Circuit Court found the appellant, Tina Stephens, guilty of maintaining a drug premises. The trial court sentenced her to 60 months' probation and to 90 days' confinement in a regional punishment facility. The lower court also ordered her to pay a $500 fine and $150 in court costs. On appeal, appellant claims that the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering her to pay a fine and by requiring her to be confined in a regional punishment facility, to pay probation fees, and to complete drug counseling. We affirm.

The jury recommended that appellant be sentenced to serve one year in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The jury also recommended that appellant receive an alternative sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-1206 (Supp. 1999). The trial court accepted the jury's recommendation to give appellant an alternative sentence without objection from appellant. Therefore, appellant is procedurally barred from arguing that the trial court exceeded its authority

by giving her an alternative sentence because she did not raise the issue in the trial court, and itcannot be considered for the first time on appeal. See Ashlock v. State, 64 Ark. App. 253, 983 S.W.2d 448 (1998).

We, however, may review allegations of void or illegal sentences raised for the first time on appeal because void or illegal sentences may be corrected at any time. Bangs v. State, 310 Ark. 235, 835 S.W.2d 294 (1992). In Arkansas, sentencing is entirely a matter of statute. Meadows v. State, 320 Ark. 686, 899 S.W.2d 72 (1995). Therefore, sentencing may not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Id. Where the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a trial court, that sentence is unauthorized and illegal, and the case must be reversed and remanded. State v. Stephenson, 340 Ark. 229, 9 S.W.3d 495 (2000).

In the present case, the trial court fined appellant $500, which was well within the statutory limit allowing a fine not exceeding $10,000. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(5) (Repl.1997). Furthermore, the trial court sentenced appellant to a regional punishment facility for 90 days, to probation, and to receive drug counseling. Confinement in a regional punishment facility and probation were authorized punishments because of appellant's status as a nonviolent offender. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-93-1204, -1206 (Supp. 1999). Because appellant's sentence is within statutory limits, it does not amount to an illegal or void sentence. See Stephenson, supra. Thus, we cannot reach the merits of appellant's argument on appeal as it was not raised below.

Affirmed.

Robbins, C.J., and Meads, J., agree.