OLAJIDE RODDY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS (Majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 472 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-23-205 Opinion Delivered OLAJIDE RODDY October 25, 2023 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-21-23] V. HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED RITA W. GRUBER, Judge Olajide Roddy appeals a Craighead County Circuit Court order revoking his probation and sentencing him to seventy-two months’ imprisonment.1 On appeal, he claims that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence that he was in constructive or actual possession of the contraband. We affirm. On May 4, 2021, Roddy pled guilty to felony second-degree battery and was sentenced to sixty months’ probation, subject to certain terms and conditions, which Roddy acknowledged receipt of, as evidenced by his signature. 1 This is a companion case to two other criminal cases: No. 16JCR-18-1406 and No. 16JCR-18-882. Roddy was given a suspended imposition of sentence in both. The circuit court held a combined revocation hearing in the three cases but issued three separate sentencing orders. Roddy filed separate appeals, and today, we hand down opinions in all three appeals. See Roddy v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 471; Roddy v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 466. Because the terms and conditions, petitions to revoke, the revocation-hearing testimony, issues on appeal, and arguments presented here are identical to those presented in his companion cases, which we also hand down today, we find it unnecessary to restate them herein. See Raino v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 337. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in companion case No. 16JCR-18-1406, Roddy v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 471, we affirm Roddy’s revocation. Affirmed. HARRISON, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree. Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2

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.