Title: Armer v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Steven Dean ARMER v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-15                                           ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 23, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- petition for review following court of
     appeals decision -- procedure followed. -- When the supreme
     court grants a petition for review following a decision by the
     court of appeals, the case is reviewed as though the appeal
     was originally filed with the supreme court. 

2.   Appeal & error -- trial court never ruled on points -- court
     will not address arguments not made at trial. -- The record
     did not show that the trial court had ruled on the specific
     questions raised on appeal; the court will not address
     arguments that were not made to the trial court; an appellant
     must obtain a ruling from the trial court in order to preserve
     a point on appeal.  

3.    Sentencing -- appellant waived any voir dire issue about
     punishment when he waived jury sentencing -- no reversal of
     sentence on grounds of irregularity in jury selection. --  
     Where appellant waived any issue about voir dire of the panel
     concerning punishment when he waived his right to have the
     jury decide punishment, asked the trial judge to set it, made
     no record of his reason for waiving jury sentencing, and
     apparently received a harsher sentence than anticipated, he
     could not then obtain a reversal of the sentence on the ground
     that there was some irregularity in the selection of the jury. 
     

     Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals; affirmed.
     Doug Norwood, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Gil Dudley, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.
     
     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
     A police officer saw a disabled car on the side of the road,
stopped, looked inside, and in plain view saw Steven Dean Armer
passed out in the back seat with about a thousand Valium tablets,
several syringes, a coke spoon, and a pipe.  Armer was charged with
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and
with possession of drug paraphernalia.  At trial, the jury returned
a verdict of guilty on both counts.  A part of the bifurcated
sentencing procedure provides that after the jury finds a defendant
guilty, it shall hear additional evidence, if any, relevant to
sentencing and retire to determine the sentence.  However, the
defendant may waive jury sentencing, with the agreement of the
prosecuting attorney and the consent of the trial court, and let
the court impose sentence.  Ark. Code Ann.  16-97-101 (Supp.
1993).  After the jury returned its verdict of guilt, Armer's
counsel announced, "Your honor, we will waive jury sentencing and
let the court decide it."  The trial court inquired of Armer
personally, and in response, Armer affirmed that he understood he
had the right to have the jury set the punishment, but that he
wanted the trial court to decide punishment.  The trial court
sentenced Armer to four years in prison on each count, with the
sentences to run concurrently.     
     Armer appealed and argued that the trial court erroneously
refused to allow him to ask certain questions on voir dire.  The
court of appeals affirmed both convictions by a tie vote, three to
three.  Armer v. State, 51 Ark. App. 173, 912 S.W.2d 436 (1995). 
We granted a petition for review because of the tie vote.  When
this court grants a petition for review following a decision by the
court of appeals, we review the case as though the appeal was
originally filed with this court.  Maloy v. Stuttgart Memorial
Hosp., 316 Ark. 447,