McGhee v. State

by the Arkansas Supreme Court

Supreme Court of Arkansas

334 Ark. 543

Brian McGhee  v.  State of ARKANSAS

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court

No. CR 98-561. --- Delivered: Oct. 15, 1998. 

 

1. CRIMINAL LAW—INCARCERATION AS ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF ORDER—WHEN ALLOWED.—Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-4-304 (Repl. 1994) explicitly provides for incarceration as an additional condition of an order, but it may be used only when the suspension of imposition of sentence is given effect.
2. CRIMINAL LAW—MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE—WHEN TRIAL COURT LOSES JURISDICTION.—A trial court loses jurisdiction to amend or modify the original sentence once a valid execution is put into place; a plea of guilty, coupled with a fine and a suspension of imposition of sentence of imprisonment constitutes a conviction; therefore, the court loses the power to modify the original order.
3. COURTS—PRECEDENT—STARE DECISIS DISCUSSED.—Precedent should not implicitly govern, but discreetly guide; the policy of adhering to precedent, or the doctrine of stare decisis, is fundamental to the common law; precedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable.
4. COURTS—PRECEDENT—OVERRULING CASE LAW.—Where it is determined that a rule established by precedent no longer gives a just result, it must then be determined whether the rights of those who have justifiably relied upon the established precedents are of greater weight in the case than that the rule be corrected; the test is whether it is more important that the matter remain settled than that it be settled correctly.
5. COURTS—PRIOR DECISIONS—PRESUMED VALID.—There is a strong presumption of the validity of prior decisions; while the supreme court does have the power to overrule a previous decision, it is necessary, as a matter of public policy, to uphold prior decisions unless a great injury or injustice would result; adherence to precedent promotes stability, predictability, and respect for judicial authority.
6. APPEAL & ERROR—ARGUMENTS UNSUPPORTED BY AUTHORITY—NOT CONSIDERED BY COURT.—The supreme court does not consider arguments unsupported by convincing authority, unless it is apparent without further research that they are well taken.
7. COURTS—PRECEDENT—NO COMPELLING REASON OR AUTHORITY GIVEN FOR OVERRULING CASE.—Where the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the supreme court's refusal to overrule Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W. 2d 240 (1994), would result in injustice or great injury, and its argument was made without compelling reason nor citation to authority, the supreme court declined to overrule the case.

Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; John W. Cole, Judge; reversed.

Montgomery, Adams, & Wyatt, PLLC, by: Dale E. Adams, for appellant.

Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

[Opinion of the court by Justice RAY THORNTON.]