Opinion ID: 1773581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Propriety of Sentencing

Text: Appellant asserts for his final point on appeal that the trial court committed error by failing to merge the aggravated-robbery convictions and by denying appellant's motion to set aside the aggravated-robbery convictions. The State argues that the trial court acted within its discretion and in accordance with Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-110 (Repl.1997) with regard to sentencing. We agree with the State and affirm appellant's sentences. Appellant cites Barnum v. State, 276 Ark. 477, 637 S.W.2d 534 (1982), as authority for the proposition that a defendant may not be sentenced on both a charged felony and an underlying felony. It is true that this was once the law; however, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-110(d)(1), now states, in pertinent part, as follows: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, separate convictions and sentences are authorized for: (A) Capital murder, § 5-10-101, and any felonies utilized as underlying felonies for the murder[.] Trial courts now have specific authority to sentence a defendant for the underlying felony of the capital murder, as well as the murder itself. Cf. Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760, 68 S.W.3d 289 (2002)(holding that conviction and sentence for underlying felony for attempted capital murder must merge with the conviction). Although appellant suggests that the prosecuting attorney submitted that the underlying felonies of the two capital murders would be merged, the State never made such a motion to the court. Actually, the record reflects that appellant waived a sentencing hearing, thereby giving the trial court sole sentencing authority. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-103(b)(4)(Repl.1997). Moreover, the court had the authority to order appellant's sentences to run consecutively, regardless of what, if anything, the State had suggested. See Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-403(a)(Repl.1997). In short, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant on the capital murder convictions and their underlying felonies and ordering them to run consecutively. We, therefore, affirm the appellant's sentences.