Wright v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Wright v. State

939 S.W.2d 835, 327 Ark. 455, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 125

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 3, 1997

DocketCR 96-1280

StatusPublished

This text of 939 S.W.2d 835 (Wright 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

Wright v. State, 939 S.W.2d 835, 327 Ark. 455, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 125 (Ark. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

W.H.“Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice.

The appellant was convicted of delivery of nine hundred and sixty-seven milligrams of crack cocaine, a Class Y felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a)(l)(i) (Supp. 1995). He was sentenced as a habitual-offender to fifty years in prison. We note that, at the time of his sentencing, the appellant had more than twenty prior convictions for forgery and one prior conviction for burglary. Under the habitual-offender statute, he was subject to a sentence of ten years to life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b)(l) (Supp. 1995). The sentence imposed by the jury is within the range of punishment established by the legislature.

For his sole argument on appeal, he claims that the sentence was cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm because we are unable to reach the merits of the appellant’s argument. The argument is raised for the first time on appeal. We will not address an appellant’s contention that a sentence is cruel or unusual if he did not object to the sentence at the trial level. Whitney v. State, 326 Ark 206, 930 S.W.2d 343 (1996); Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 498, 898 S.W.2d 38 (1995).

Affirmed.

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

W.H.“Dub” Arnold, Chief Justice.

The appellant was convicted of delivery of nine hundred and sixty-seven milligrams of crack cocaine, a Class Y felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401(a)(l)(i) (Supp. 1995). He was sentenced as a habitual-offender to fifty years in prison. We note that, at the time of his sentencing, the appellant had more than twenty prior convictions for forgery and one prior conviction for burglary. Under the habitual-offender statute, he was subject to a sentence of ten years to life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b)(l) (Supp. 1995). The sentence imposed by the jury is within the range of punishment established by the legislature.

For his sole argument on appeal, he claims that the sentence was cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We affirm because we are unable to reach the merits of the appellant’s argument. The argument is raised for the first time on appeal. We will not address an appellant’s contention that a sentence is cruel or unusual if he did not object to the sentence at the trial level. Whitney v. State, 326 Ark 206, 930 S.W.2d 343 (1996); Williams v. State, 320 Ark. 498, 898 S.W.2d 38 (1995).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

939 S.W.2d 835, 327 Ark. 455, 1997 Ark. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-state-ark-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack