Warren Bowman v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case









MARCH 16, 2005


[NO. CR2003-3814]



Karen R. Baker, Judge

Appellant, Warren Bowman, pled guilty to ten counts of sexual indecency with a child and three counts of indecent exposure. He was sentenced to a total of ten years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction, with three days of jail credit. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request for 175 days' jail credit. We find no error and affirm.

Appellant was arrested on September 9, 2003, on ten charges of sexual indecency with a child and three charges of indecent exposure. Appellant was unable to make bond and remained incarcerated in the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility awaiting trial. On September 11, 2003, appellant's probation was revoked by the Little Rock District Court for an unrelated misdemeanor charge of public sexual indecency, and he was sentenced to one year in the Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility.

On January 26, 2004, appellant appeared in Pulaski County Circuit Court and pled guilty to all thirteen charges. On this particular date, appellant also pled guilty to a petition to revoke his probation that the State had filed against him in an unrelated case (CR 01-2834). Appellant's plea of guilty was accepted by the trial judge, and a hearing to determine sentencing was set for February 23, 2004.

At the sentencing hearing, appellant was sentenced to one year imprisonment for each of the ten counts of sexual indecency with a child, a Class D felony, to run consecutively. He was also sentenced to one year in the county jail for each of the three counts of indecent exposure, a Class A misdemeanor.1 At the conclusion of the hearing, a dispute arose as to the amount of jail-time credit to which appellant was entitled. The trial judge set another sentencing hearing on March 1, 2004, to determine the exact amount of jail credit to which appellant was entitled. Before the March 1 hearing, appellant's counsel filed a motion and brief outlining his contention that appellant was entitled to the entire 175 days of jail time credit. The State did not file a brief, however, it asserted at the hearing that appellant was only entitled to credit for three days spent in the county jail. Ultimately, the trial judge denied appellant's request and awarded him credit for three days of jail time. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not giving him 175 days jail credit toward his sentence. He reasserts that, because he was arrested on September 9, 2003, and was not sentenced until March 1, 2004, 175 days later, he was entitled to 175 days' jail credit rather than the three days that the trial court gave him.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-404 (Repl. 1993) provides that a defendant shall be given credit for time spent in custody against the sentence for which he is being held for trial. In Hughes v. State, 281 Ark. 428, 664 S.W.2d 471 (1984), however, our supreme court held that an appellant was not entitled to jail credit on a subsequent sentence for time spent in jail on a parole revocation, even if the parole revocation resulted from the crime for which he received the subsequent sentence. See also Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997) (holding that an appellant was not entitled to more than five days jail time credit where he was on parole at the time of his arrest and his parole was revoked five days later; thus, he was actually being held after the first five days' for his parole revocation and not simply pending trial on the charge for which he was arrested).

Here, appellant was arrested on counts of sexual indecency with a child and indecent exposure on September 9, 2003. His probation in an unrelated case was revoked on September 11, 2003, and he began serving a one-year sentence that day. Under these facts, we find no merit to appellant's argument concerning jail-time credit and affirm.


Gladwin and Griffen, JJ., agree.

1 Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ยง 5-4-403(c)(1) (Repl. 1997 & Supp.), which states that "a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor and a sentence of imprisonment for a felony shall run concurrently, and both sentences shall be satisfied by service of sentence for a felony," appellant's three one-year sentences of incarceration in the county jail were satisfied by appellant's ten-year sentence of imprisonment.