Title: Acklin v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

606 S.W.2d 594 (1980) John W. ACKLIN a/k/a Yahya Zakariya, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 80-171. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 27, 1980. E. Alvin Schay, Deputy State Appellate Defender by Jackson Jones, Deputy State Appellate Defender, Little Rock, for appellant. Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by C. R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice. The only question here is whether the trial judge actually exercised his discretionary authority in directing that three three-year sentences imposed by the jury should run consecutively rather than concurrently. We are unable to say there was an exercise of discretion and therefore remand the case for resentencing. Acklin pleaded not guilty to three charges of forgery, but on the witness stand he freely admitted his guilt and attributed the forgeries to a number of things, including his loss of a job, his separation and divorce, and his inability to support his five children. The jury verdicts of three years for each offense were near the minimum, the range of punishment for a Class C felony being two to ten years. Ark.Stat. Ann. § 41-901(c) (Repl.1977). The Code also provides that multiple sentences shall run concurrently unless the court orders them to run consecutively. § 41-903(3)(a). How two or more sentences should run lies solely within the province of the trial court. Graham v. State, 254 Ark. 741, 495 S.W.2d 864 (1973). In sentencing, however, there must be an exercise of judgment by the trial judge, not a mechanical imposition *595 of the same sentence in every case. United States v. Derrick, 519 F.2d 1 (6th Cir., 1975); Woosley v. United States, 478 F.2d 139 (8th Cir., 1973). We have disapproved, as an implied threat, a trial judge's uniform practice of telling the accused that if he is not guilty he should plead not guilty, but if the jury imposes separate sentences the judge will "stack" them. Orman v. Bishop, 243 Ark. 609, 420 S.W.2d 908 (1967). After the verdicts were announced in the case at bar there was an extended discussion between the court and counsel, which we quote in part. In response to defense counsel's request that the sentences run concurrently, because the defendant had five children to support, the court replied: The Code vests the choice between concurrent and consecutive sentences in the judge, not in the jury. We commend the trial judge for his outspoken candor and would certainly condemn a resort to silence as a deliberate means of concealing an improper practice. But the trouble is, nothing in the colloquy indicates that the trial judge really exercised his discretion. Rather, he seems to have imposed consecutive sentences either because the defendant asked for a jury trial without any defense or because it was the court's rule to direct that jury sentences run consecutively. We have often said that a court proceeding should not merely be fair; if should also appear to be fair. Without implying in any way that the consecutive sentences are unwarranted, we find it best to remand the cause for resentencing. See Derrick and Woosley, supra. Reversed and remanded.