Christopher Lee Perdue v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 240

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 240 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-244

Opinion Delivered April 23, 2025 CHRISTOPHER LEE PERDUE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 04CR-03-600]

HONORABLE BRAD KARREN, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

Christopher Perdue appeals the sentencing order entered by the Benton County

Circuit Court upon the revocation of his probation. On appeal, Perdue argues that he

received an illegal sentence. We affirm.

In August 2012, Perdue pleaded guilty to theft by receiving, aggravated assault on a

family member, first-degree terroristic threatening, and failure to appear, and he was

sentenced to six years’ probation for each offense.1 In December 2012, the State filed a

petition to revoke Perdue’s probation, and a warrant was issued for his arrest for violating

his probation. The warrant was not served, however, until January 2020. A revocation

hearing was set, but due to continuances and multiple instances in which Perdue failed to

1 Perdue was also sentenced to probation for a second offense of failure to appear, but the revocation that is the subject of this appeal did not include that offense. appear, the hearing was not held until January 2024. After hearing testimony from Perdue’s

probation officers, the circuit court revoked Perdue’s probation. For the offenses of

aggravated assault and terroristic threatening, Perdue was sentenced to six years’

imprisonment. For theft by receiving and failure to appear, he was sentenced to six years’

imprisonment and four years’ suspended imposition of sentence (SIS). The sentencing order

reflects that each sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the sentences for all of the

other offenses. An additional notation at the end of the sentencing order states that “SIS is

to follow ADC.”

On appeal, Perdue does not challenge the revocation of his probation; instead, he

argues only that his sentence violates Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-307 (Repl. 1997).

At the time of Perdue’s offenses, this statute provided as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a period of suspension or probation commences to run on the day it is imposed.

(b) Multiple periods of suspension or probation, whether imposed at the same or different times, shall run concurrently. The period of a suspension or probation shall also run concurrently with any federal or state term of imprisonment or parole to which the defendant is or becomes subject during the period.

(c) If the court sentences the defendant to a term of imprisonment and suspends imposition of sentence as to an additional term of imprisonment, the period of the suspension commences to run on the day the defendant is lawfully set at liberty from the imprisonment.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-307. Perdue argues that the circuit court violated the statute by

ordering his SIS to follow, or run consecutively to, his six-year term of imprisonment.

2 The State argues that Perdue’s interpretation of the statute conflicts with its plain

language and the cases interpreting it. We agree. In Walden v. State, 2014 Ark. 193, 433

S.W.3d 864, the supreme court reiterated its previous holding that an SIS does not begin to

run until after a term of imprisonment ends when both are imposed as a sentence for a single

crime. Accordingly, the note in Perdue’s sentencing order that “SIS is to follow ADC”

accurately reflects the law with regard to Perdue’s sentence of six years’ imprisonment and

four years’ SIS for both theft by receiving and failure to appear. The Walden court went on

to hold that section 5-4-307(b) prohibited a circuit court from ordering a suspended sentence

to run consecutively to a term of imprisonment imposed for a different crime. While the

statute requires that a period of suspension run concurrently with any term of imprisonment

to which a defendant “is or becomes subject to during the period of the suspension,”

Perdue’s period of suspension does not begin until he is lawfully set at liberty from his

imprisonment. Accordingly, he would not be subject to a term of imprisonment for

aggravated assault and terroristic threatening “during” the term of his SIS for theft by

receiving and failure to appear. We hold that his sentence is legal and affirm the sentencing

order.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Burgos Law Firm, by: Alex R. Burgos, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.