Davidson v. State

193 S.W.3d 254, 358 Ark. 452 (2004) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · September 23, 2004 · No. CR 03-1069

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed James Orval Davidson’s rape conviction and life sentence imposed under Arkansas’s three-strikes habitual-offender law. The court held that Davidson procedurally defaulted on his argument that prior convictions pending appeal could not support sentence enhancement because he had not raised that objection in the trial court.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Donald L. Corbin
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
September 23, 2004
Docket number
CR 03-1069
Procedural posture
Davidson appealed his rape conviction and life sentence under Arkansas's three-strikes habitual-offender statute, arguing that the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded if the prior convictions used for enhancement were later reversed on appeal.
Standard of review
The court reviewed preservation of error de novo as a matter of appellate procedure and reviewed the record under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) for adverse rulings objected to below but not argued on appeal.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas; precedential
Parties
James Orval Davidson v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

sentencingpreservation of errorcriminal procedureappellate proceduresentencing guidelines

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate proceduresentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Davidson could obtain reversal or resentencing based on the possibility that prior convictions used to enhance his sentence would later be reversed on appeal when he had not raised that objection in the trial court.
  2. Whether the record contained any reversible adverse ruling subject to review under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h).

Holdings

  1. A defendant may not raise for the first time on appeal an argument that prior convictions used to enhance a sentence should not have been considered because they were pending appeal and might later be reversed, unless the issue was preserved by a sufficiently specific objection in the trial court.
  2. The court's review of the record under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) revealed no reversible adverse rulings that had been objected to below but were not argued on appeal.

Key quotations

It is well settled that to preserve an argument for appeal, there must be an objection in the trial court that is sufficient to apprise the court of the particular error alleged. (255)
Accordingly, the holding in Evans precludes us from reaching the merits of Appellant's argument. (256)

Factual background

Davidson was convicted of rape involving his juvenile daughter. The State used two first-degree sexual-abuse convictions entered the day before trial, together with a 1994 first-degree sexual-abuse conviction, as the three prior convictions required for sentencing under Arkansas's three-strikes law. Because the statute made life imprisonment the only available sentence, the circuit court imposed a life sentence while Davidson's appeal of the two 2003 convictions was still pending.

Procedural history

Davidson was charged with rape in the Pulaski County Circuit Court. The State amended the information after Davidson was convicted of two first-degree sexual-abuse offenses the day before trial, and the circuit court later admitted those convictions and a 1994 conviction as three prior convictions supporting a mandatory life sentence. Davidson appealed the rape conviction and sentence while the appeal of the two 2003 prior convictions remained pending. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that his sentencing argument was procedurally barred because he had not raised it in the trial court and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…