Lawrence v. State

2022 Ark. App. 468

655 S.W.3d 544

Jonathan Martin LAWRENCE, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-22-287

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered November 16, 2022

Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, Monticello, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

Jonathan Martin Lawrence pleaded guilty in the Drew County Circuit Court to possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class D felony. He was sentenced by a jury as a habitual offender to fifteen years’ imprisonment. His sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in overruling his objection to the State's proffered jury instructions and verdict form. We affirm.

Lawrence pleaded guilty to a crime he committed on December 8, 2020. After the plea, the State presented a packet of information to the circuit court for the sentencing hearing that included evidence of Lawrence's previous five offenses and proposed jury instructions. Because Lawrence was a habitual offender, he was subject to an enhanced sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-501(b) (Supp. 2021), which authorizes a term of imprisonment of "not more than fifteen (15) years" for a habitual offender convicted of a Class D felony. The State informed the court that the habitual-offender statute had been amended from stating that a defendant "may be sentenced to pay any fine authorized by law for the felony conviction and to an extended term of imprisonment"—in this case, not more than fifteen years—to stating that a defendant "may be sentenced to pay any fine authorized by law for the felony conviction and shall be sentenced to an extended term of imprisonment. " Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b)(1) (Repl. 2020) & (Supp. 2021) (emphasis added).¹ The State argued that this statutory modification mandated prison time. Lawrence contended that it did not mandate prison time, arguing that the jury could still impose no prison time at all. The court agreed with the State and opined that the new statute required the jury to impose at least one day of prison time.

The jury instructions given by the court that are relevant to this appeal include the following:

The offense of possession of drug paraphernalia to inhale methamphetamine, when committed by a habitual offender is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 years and a fine up to $10,000.

....

After hearing arguments of counsel, you will retire to consider and complete the following verdict form. I have it with me, and it reads, We the jury fix the sentence of Jonathan Lawrence at a term of – and there is a blank – in the Department of Correction and a fine of – and there is a blank – and it needs to be signed by the foreman. Underneath there it says "not more than 15 years," so that is your range. And if you choose a fine, it is not to exceed $10,000.

The State did not mention the jury instructions or Lawrence's possible sentence of imprisonment in its closing argument except to recommend that the jury sentence Lawrence to a minimum of six years’ imprisonment. Lawrence's counsel stated in closing argument that Lawrence faced a possible sentence of "up to 15 years" in prison and a fine of "up to $10,000," explaining that the jury could impose a term of imprisonment "for as little as one day." Counsel then argued,

Now, I'm not here to say that perhaps one day is a sufficient kind of sentence in this type of case, but you can impose a sentence of one year, two years, three years. And when you look at the specific charge, I think that is the range that I think would be justifiable in this type of case given the circumstances of this case.

The jury's completed verdict form, as signed by the jury foreman and sentencing Lawrence to fifteen years’ imprisonment and no fine, is set out below.

On appeal, Lawrence contends that the court erred in overruling his objection to the jury instructions and verdict form because the statute had not been amended at the time his crime was committed and did not contain the word "shall." He argues that the court failed to allow the jury to consider the lawful possible verdict of no imprisonment.

A party is entitled to a jury instruction when it is a correct statement of the law and there is some basis in the evidence to support giving the instruction. Gould v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 543, at 5, 444 S.W.3d 408, 411. This court reviews a circuit court's decision regarding the use of jury instructions for abuse of discretion. Id. The jury instructions at issue in this case involve Lawrence's possible sentence of imprisonment. Sentencing in Arkansas is entirely a matter of statute, Donaldson v. State , 370 Ark. 3, 7, 257 S.W.3d 74, 77 (2007), and shall be in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime—here, December 2020. The State concedes that the circuit court erred by relying on the amended version of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b) since it was not effective until July 2021, six months after Lawrence had committed his crime. However, the State contends that there is no reversible error because the court correctly instructed the jury that the sentencing range was "not more than 15 years."

We turn to the relevant statute in effect at the time the crime in this case was committed.

(b)(1) A defendant meeting the following criteria [includes a defendant convicted of four or more felonies] may be sentenced to pay any fine authorized by law for the felony conviction and to an extended term of imprisonment

...