Joe Lester Cantrell v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Joe Lester Cantrell’s convictions for attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, maintaining a drug premises, and failure to appear. The court held that Cantrell failed to preserve his sufficiency challenge to the attempted-manufacture conviction and that his unpreserved argument concerning habitual-offender notice presented a due-process issue rather than an illegal-sentence issue reviewable for the first time on appeal.

Holdings

1. A defendant who is convicted of a lesser-included offense must specifically challenge the elements of that lesser-included offense in the directed-verdict motions to preserve a sufficiency challenge. Cantrell's challenge to the attempt conviction was unpreserved because his motions addressed only whether methamphetamine had been produced in final form, an element of manufacturing rather than attempt.
2. Substantial evidence supported Cantrell's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine because the paraphernalia was located in common areas, some items were in plain view, Cantrell owned the residence, was the only person present, and admitted that the laboratory was his.
3. Substantial evidence supported Cantrell's conviction for maintaining a drug premises because he owned the dwelling and admitted that the methamphetamine laboratory was his.
4. Cantrell could not raise for the first time on appeal his claim that the enhanced failure-to-appear sentence was unauthorized because the habitual-offender allegation was omitted from the information. The claim was based on lack of notice and due process, not on a statutory limitation depriving the circuit court of authority to impose the sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cantrell preserved a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to his conviction for the lesser-included offense of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine when his directed-verdict motions challenged only the lack of proof that methamphetamine had been produced in final form.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported Cantrell's convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine and maintaining a drug premises.
3. Whether Cantrell could challenge for the first time on appeal the enhanced sentence imposed for failure to appear because the State had not alleged habitual-offender status in the information for that offense.

Disposition

affirmed