Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): filed in 2003 because the court had previously modified his probated sentence and fine in 2002. Prior to Act 1569 of 1999, a trial court lost subject matter jurisdiction to modify or amend an original sentence once it was put into execution. Gates v. State, 353 Ark. 333, 107 S.W.3d 868 (2003). A sentence is put into execution when the trial court issues a judgment of conviction or a commitment order. Id. A guilty plea, coupled with a fine and probation or a suspended imposition of a sentence, constitutes a conviction. Id. This conviction deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to amend or modify the executed sentence. Id. See also Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-301 (Repl. 1997). Once a sentence is put into execution, an attempted modification of the original order is erroneous. Gates, supra (<HOLDING>). In Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final (B) holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the sentence originally imposed by imposing an additional term of fifteen years suspended sentence (C) holding the court had no jurisdiction to modify a validly imposed sentence on prisoners own motion (D) holding that a suspended lawyer remains subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court for acts committed while suspended (E) holding that a sentence structured with three years incarceration suspended and eight years of sex offender probation was a true split sentence
Output (English): holding that a court may not change the term of sentence by subsequent amendment after the sentence becomes final