Case ID: ark_309/html/0545-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Tom Glaze, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Lee FELLOWS v. STATE of Arkansas
    CR 91-156
    828 S.W.2d 847
    Supreme Court of Arkansas
    Opinion delivered June 9, 1992
    
      Anne Orsi Smith, for appellant.
    
      Winston Bryant, Att’y Gen., by: Cathy Derden, Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.
   Tom Glaze, Justice.

Appellant was charged with a series of burglary and theft offenses. At trial, he was convicted of four counts each of burglary and theft, and his sentences were set totaling one hundred years. Appellant’s sole point on appeal concerns the trial court’s order running appellant’s sentences consecutively instead of concurrently. He argues the trial court abused its discretion by accepting the jury’s recommendations on sentencing without commenting or explaining its decision to impose the consecutive sentences.

We are unable to reach appellant’s argument because he made no objection at the time his sentences were imposed. This court has repeatedly held that, where the record reflects a total absence of any objections after the jury’s findings and sentencing are read by the court, it will not consider issues of such nature raised for the first time on appeal. Williams v. State, 303 Ark, 193, 794 S.W.2d 618 (1990); Edwards v. State, 300 Ark. 4, 775 S.W.2d 900 (1989); Neal v. State, 298 Ark. 565, 769 S.W.2d 414 (1989); see also Withers v. State, 308 Ark. 507, 825 S.W.2d 819 (1992). Therefore, we must affirm.