Cody v. State

Henry Lee CODY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-513                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 30, 1996


Sentencing -- sentencing is controlled by statute -- trial court
     correctly ruled the governing statute was one in effect at
     time appellant committed crimes. -- Since the enactment of the
     criminal code, it has been consistently held that sentencing
     is controlled by statute, and that sentencing shall be in
     accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the
     commission of the offense; accordingly, the trial court
     correctly ruled that the governing statute was the one in
     effect at the time appellant committed the crimes and not the
     statute as later amended.


     Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge;
affirmed.
     Bart E. Ziegenhorn, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kent G. Holt, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
     Henry Cody was convicted on three counts of theft of property. 
The statute in effect at the time Cody committed the thefts
provided that theft of property was a Class C felony if the value
of the property were $200 or more.  Ark. Code Ann.  5-36-103
(Repl. 1993).  By the time of trial, the statute had been amended
to provide that it was a Class C felony if the value of the
property were $500 or more.  Ark. Code Ann.  5-36-103(b)(2)(A)
(Supp. 1995).  Cody contended at trial, as he does on appeal, that
the amended statute should be applied.  The argument is without
merit.
     Before the enactment of the Arkansas Criminal Code of 1975, we
held that when the General Assembly amended an act to reduce the
penalty after a crime was committed, but before sentencing, the
sentence was to be fixed in accordance with the amended act.  Clark
v. State, 246 Ark. 876, 440 S.W.2d 205 (1969).  However, in State
v. Townsend, 314 Ark. 427, 863 S.W.2d 288 (1993), we held that the
criminal code sentencing provisions had supplanted our case law. 
Id. at 430, 863 S.W.2d  at 289.  Since the enactment of the criminal
code, we have consistently held that sentencing is controlled by
statute, Easley v. State, 274 Ark. 215, 623 S.W.2d 189 (1981), and
that sentencing shall be in accordance with the statute in effect
at the time of the commission of the offense.  Hunter v. State, 278
Ark. 428, 645 S.W.2d 954 (1983).  Accordingly, the trial court
correctly ruled that the governing statute was the one in effect at
the time Cody committed the crimes.
     Affirmed.
     Glaze, J., concurs.