Hood v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 299
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR 09-32
BONDIE HOOD
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered April 7, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE GREENE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2007-607]
HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO BE
RELIEVED GRANTED
COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Judge
The prosecuting attorney in Greene County charged appellant Bondie Hood with the
offense of rape in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(ii) (Supp.
2009). This statute provides that a person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse
with another person who is a minor and the actor is the victim’s uncle. Rape is a class Y
felony that is punishable by ten to forty years in prison, or life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4401(a)(1) (Repl. 2006). Appellant subsequently pled guilty to raping his fifteen-year-old niece
who gave birth to appellant’s child, and the trial court conducted a hearing to determine
appellant’s sentence. After listening to the testimony of witnesses offered by the prosecution
and the defense, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of twenty years in prison. This
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 299
appeal follows the trial court’s entry of the judgment and commitment order setting forth the
plea and sentence.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4-3(k) of the Rules
of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, appellant’s counsel has filed a motion
to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is wholly without merit. Counsel’s motion is
accompanied by a brief listing all objections raised by the parties with an explanation as to
why none of the court’s rulings were adverse to appellant and thus present no meritorious
basis for reversal. The clerk of this court provided appellant with a copy of counsel’s motion
and brief and notified him of the right to file a list of pro se points on appeal. Appellant has
filed a list of points for us to review.
The State responded to appellant’s list of points and also asserted that the appeal must
be dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the State argued that no appeal could
lie following a plea of guilt where the sentencing hearing took place before the trial court as
opposed to a jury. We certified this jurisdictional question to the supreme court, and the
court held that the exception for allowing appeals from guilty pleas to question evidentiary
rulings made during a sentencing hearing applies to cases where an appellant is sentenced
either by a judge or jury. Hood v. State, 2010 Ark. 62. The supreme court remanded the case
to us to review the appeal.
Our review of the record confirms that the trial court made no rulings at the
sentencing hearing that were adverse to appellant. The trial court sustained three objections
-2-
CACR 09-32
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 299
raised by appellant and did not rule upon another, and the trial court overruled the State’s
lone objection.
In his pro se points on appeal, appellant maintains that forcible compulsion should have
been an issue. However, forcible compulsion is not an element of the offense of rape with
which he was charged. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(ii). Moreover, by pleading
guilty, appellant waived any argument on appeal with regard to the underlying offense. Seibs
v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004); Casey v. State, 97 Ark. App. 1, 242 S.W.3d 627
(2006). For the same reason, appellant waived his argument that the victim was his niece by
marriage and that he was not her guardian.
Appellant also asserts that his sentence was excessive. Appellant’s sentence is within
the range of permissible sentences, and thus it is not excessive. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4401(a)(1). More importantly, appellant did not raise this objection at the hearing. A
defendant who makes no objection at the time the trial court imposes the sentence has no
standing to complain of it. Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 324, 287 S.W.3d 587 (2008).
Appellant also maintains that the child was a willing participant and that the act was
consensual. The victim’s consent is no defense to a prosecution for rape under the subsection
of the rape statute outlining the offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(b). However, the trial
court allowed testimony on this subject as mitigating evidence under Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-97-103(6) (Repl. 2006). As the trial court permitted the introduction
of testimony, the trial court considered it in deciding upon appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s
-3-
CACR 09-32
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 299
argument thus provides no basis for reversal. Finally, appellant contends that his trial counsel
was ineffective. However, we do not address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for
the first time on appeal. Williams v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 525, ___ S.W.3d ___.
Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to be relieved and affirm the judgment and sentence
imposed by the trial court.
Affirmed; motion granted.
HART and ROBBINS, JJ., agree.
-4-
CACR 09-32
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.