Case Title: Rhea v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-123

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Michael David RHEA v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-123                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered March 10, 1997


Evidence -- trial court properly denied motion to suppress -- 
     judgment of conviction affirmed. -- Appellant's argument that
     the arresting officer effected an illegal seizure of his
     person and that, as a result, the evidence found during the
     subsequent search of appellant and the custodial statement
     given to police after his arrest must be suppressed as the
     fruits of an illegal search and seizure, was without merit;
     for the identical reasons set out in the companion case of
     Hammons v. State, 327 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (March 10,
     1997), the trial court's judgment of conviction was affirmed. 
       

     Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District;
Floyd Rogers, Judge; affirmed.
     John Joplin, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellant, Michael David Rhea, appeals the judgment of
conviction of the Sebastian County Circuit Court sentencing him to
forty years' imprisonment, with imposition of twenty-seven years
suspended, and ten years' imprisonment for the respective charges
of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, Class Y
felony, and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Class
C felony, as provided in Ark. Code Ann.  5-64-401 (Supp. 1995).  
Jurisdiction lies properly within this court pursuant to Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2) (as amended by per curiam July 15, 1996). 
     Appellant was arrested, along with Billy Lowell Hammons, on
March 1, 1995, and subsequently charged with the foregoing felony
offenses.  Both Appellant and Hammons made motions to suppress the
evidence seized by police officers on the theory that the arresting
officer had effected an illegal seizure of the two men.  After a
hearing on the matter, the trial court denied both Appellant's and
Hammons's suppression motions.  Following the trial court's ruling,
Appellant and Hammons entered conditional pleas of nolo contendere
to the drug offenses, pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24.3, and both
subsequently appealed the trial court's ruling.  
     On appeal, Appellant maintains that the arresting officer
effected an illegal seizure of his person and that, as a result,
the evidence found during the subsequent search of Appellant and
the custodial statement given to police after his arrest must be
suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure.  During
the suppression hearing below, Appellant did not otherwise
challenge the legality or the voluntariness of his custodial
statement, nor does he do so on appeal.    
     The facts of this case have been outlined in great detail in
the companion case of Hammons v. State, 327 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d
___ (March 10, 1997).  The arguments made on appeal by both
Appellant and Hammons are identical, and therefore, based upon our
reasoning set forth in the Hammons opinion, we similarly affirm the
trial court's judgment of conviction in this case.