Cody v. State

929 S.W.2d 159, 326 Ark. 85, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 483
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedSeptember 30, 1996
DocketCR 96-513
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 929 S.W.2d 159 (Cody v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cody v. State, 929 S.W.2d 159, 326 Ark. 85, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 483 (Ark. 1996).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harris v. State
547 S.W.3d 64 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2018)
White v. State
2015 Ark. 100 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2015)
Withers v. State
218 S.W.3d 386 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2005)
Bunch v. State
43 S.W.3d 132 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2001)
Opinion No.
Arkansas Attorney General Reports, 1997
Spann v. State
944 S.W.2d 537 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Travis v. State
944 S.W.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
929 S.W.2d 159, 326 Ark. 85, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cody-v-state-ark-1996.