Spring Ebbert v. State of Arkansas

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, JUDGE

DIVISION I

SPRING EBBERT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-00913

February 13, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR99-1333]

HONORABLE DAVID BOGARD,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

REVERSED AND DISMISSED

Spring Ebbert, appellant, appeals the order revoking her probation. For reversal, appellant argues that the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her probation. We agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her probation and reverse.

On July 12, 1998, appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor offenses of possession of controlled substance and possession of instrument of crime. The court sentenced appellant to probation for a period of one year, ordered her to pay a $600.00 fine plus court costs, and suspended her driver's license for six months.

On March 31, 2000, appellant's probation was revoked by the trial court. Appellant was sentenced to an additional twelve months' probation, and conditions, fines, and costs were imposed. Again, on May 2, 2000, the trial court revoked appellant's probation and

imposed an additional twelve months' probation. The State petitioned the trial court to revoke appellant's probation again on September 22, 2000. Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition, arguing that a revocation would be an illegal sentence. The trial court rejected this argument, and on April 6, 2001, after determining that appellant had violated the terms of her probation, the trial court entered a judgment and commitment order, imposing a sentence of one year of incarceration. From that order comes this appeal.

Appellant argues two points for reversal. First, she argues that the extension of her probation beyond July 11, 2000, and the imposition of a fine in excess of $1,000 are illegal sentences. Second, appellant asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke her probation and sentence her to one year's incarceration. The State concedes that appellant's second argument has merit but does not address the first argument. We agree that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to revoke appellant's probation. Having determined that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we do not address appellant's first argument.

It is well settled that a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify or amend an original sentence once a valid sentence is put into execution. See Pike v. State, 344 Ark. 478, 40 S.W.3d 795 (2001); McGhee v. State, 334 Ark. 543, 975 S.W.2d 834 (1998); Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W.2d 240 (1994). Further, a plea of guilty, coupled with a fine and a suspension of imposition of sentence of imprisonment or probation, constitutes a conviction. Pike, supra.

In Bagwell v. State, 346 Ark. 18, 53 S.W.3d 520 (2001), the Arkansas Supreme Courtheld that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to modify its original sentence once that sentence had been executed. In Bagwell, the court addressed the applicability of Act 15691 and held that the Act was not in effect at the time the crime was committed, and it did not apply retroactively.

Similarly, by the time of the third revocation hearing, the trial court had lost subject-matter jurisdiction to modify the sentence that had already been executed by the trial court's revocation of appellant's probation on March 31, 2000, and on May 2, 2000. Because the trial court lost subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant once it executed his sentence at the second hearing, a fortiori, we conclude that the trial court had no authority or jurisdiction to either extend probation or hold the third probation-revocation hearing.

In accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated and the holdings in Bagwell, supra, and Pike, supra, we reverse and dismiss this case.

Reversed and dismissed.

Griffen and Vaught, JJ., agree.

1 Act 1569 of 1999, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-301, 5-4-303, 5-4-304, and 5-4-306 (Supp. 1999), was effective as of April 15, 1999, and was amended to empower circuit courts to modify original sentences following revocation hearings, up to the limits set in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-303, 5-4-304, and 5-4-306. Similar to Bagwell, this case is being decided under the laws of the Arkansas Code Annotated that were in effect at the time of the offense. Some of these code sections have been amended since the time the offense was committed.