Kozal v. State

451 S.W.2d 224, 248 Ark. 214, 1970 Ark. LEXIS 1202
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 9, 1970
Docket5-5476
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 451 S.W.2d 224 (Kozal 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
Kozal v. State, 451 S.W.2d 224, 248 Ark. 214, 1970 Ark. LEXIS 1202 (Ark. 1970).

Opinion

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellant asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error in its judgment revoking a previous suspension of sentence on a felony charge. The particular point upon which appellant relies is that no minimum. sentence was fixed in: the original judgment of the court suspending sentence entered on November 19, 1968,, so that- the court had, no authority to fix a minimum'sentence in its later! judgment revoking the suspension and ordering appellant committed to the Department‘ of Corrections. Ap-' pellant argues that Section 28 of Act No. 50 of 1.968, which became effective on February' 21,' 1968, governs this situation rather than Act’48, Section 28(2), or Act, 94, Section 1(2) of 1969. ' , ’

The record reflects no objection tó the judgment of the court fixing the minimrim , parole time at ohe:~ third of the sentence. The motion for new trial simply alleges that the court’s order revoking the' suspension of sentence previously imposed by the court arid the. finding that appellant had not been of good cóndüct and behavior are contrary to both the law and the evidence introduced pertaining to this issue and case. No mention whatever is made of the fixing of a minimum parole time.

We held in Petty v. State, 245 Ark. 808, 434 S. W. 2d 602, that we could not consider alleged error in fixing the minimum time to be served in the Department of Corrections when no objection was made to the entry of the judgment or the penitentiary commitment thereon or when the point was not presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial. Upon that authority, the judgment is affirmed, ,,

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

Related

Cassady v. State
463 S.W.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
451 S.W.2d 224, 248 Ark. 214, 1970 Ark. LEXIS 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozal-v-state-ark-1970.