Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-307 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Mark James Chaney, Recent Developments: Arkansas Supreme Court Denies Judges' Discretion to Suspend Enhanced Criminal Sentences Imposed by Statute and Holds All Suspensions of Enhanced Sentences Allowed Under Law Must Run Concurrently with the Primary Sentence, 66 Ark. L. Rev. 907 (2013).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Criminal Procedure, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 885.

Case Notes

In General.

This section reduced the prior law to exactness in the matter of when a suspended sentence commences to run upon release from a period of confinement, and although it is included in the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is not a new manner of computing the running time but clarifies the law as it existed prior to enactment of the Arkansas Criminal Code. Matthews v. State, 265 Ark. 298, 578 S.W.2d 30 (1979).

The court did not have the power to revoke defendant's suspended sentence prior to the commencement of the suspension period. Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d 235 (2003).

Although a suspended sentence for escape had probably expired prior to the date of a revocation hearing, defendant was not entitled to relief because a motion to supplement the record to add the date of release was denied; the evidence was never presented to the trial court prior to the entry of judgment. Rameriz v. State, 91 Ark. App. 271, 209 S.W.3d 457 (2005).

Defendant's sentences were not illegal where the applicable order did not state that the sentences were to run consecutively, and thus, under § 5-4-403 and this section, the sentences ran concurrently. McElroy v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 342, 553 S.W.3d 182 (2018).

Commencement of Sentence.

The trial court had authority to revoke suspended sentence for violation occurring prior to the commencement of the suspension period. Venable v. State, 27 Ark. App. 289, 770 S.W.2d 170 (1989), overruled, Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d 235 (2003).

The suspended four and one-half year portion of defendant's sentence began to run on the day that he was released from the Department of Correction. Lyons v. State, 35 Ark. App. 29, 813 S.W.2d 262 (1991).

Trial court had authority to revoke a suspended sentence imposed for residential burglary because the sentence commenced on the day it was rendered, despite the fact that defendant was ordered to serve a term of imprisonment on the same day. Richardson v. State, 85 Ark. App. 347, 157 S.W.3d 536 (2004).

Where defendant was sentenced to prison plus a suspended sentence for an additional term, but defendant violated the conditions of her suspended sentence before she served any of her prison sentence, the portion of the trial court's order that imposed an unauthorized twenty-year prison term was reversed; a trial court does not have the authority to revoke a suspended sentence before the commencement of the period of suspension and, in such instances, the resulting sentence is void. Stultz v. State, 92 Ark. App. 204, 212 S.W.3d 42 (2005).

Trial court did not lack jurisdiction to revoke defendant's suspended sentence on the ground that defendant failed to complete the Arkansas Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program (RSVP) as the conduct did not occur prior to the suspended sentence; the judgment and commitment order imposed a six-year term of imprisonment to be served concurrently with the 10-year suspended sentence, as required by subdivision (b)(2) of this section. Seamster v. State, 2009 Ark. 258, 308 S.W.3d 567 (2009).

In a probation revocation case, defendant’s argument that the imposition of more time than her original sentence was improper was rejected because, even though the period of probation began to run when defendant was sentenced, the trial court could have imposed any sentence upon revocation that could have been imposed originally under former § 5-4-309(g)(1)(A). Defendant pled guilty to 2 Class C felonies and was subject to a maximum sentence of 10 years on both counts; therefore, sentences of 72 months and 50 months upon revocation were permitted. Whitson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 283 (2014).

Probation.

Where the defendant was sentenced on two charges of theft of property and burglary, receiving a 6-year term of imprisonment for theft of property and another 6-year term for burglary, to run consecutively to the theft, and the court then ordered that execution of the sentence of the burglary term be suspended, placing the defendant on probation for 6 years, the court erred in running his probation consecutively to his term of imprisonment. Hendrix v. State, 291 Ark. 134, 722 S.W.2d 596 (1987).

Suspended Sentences.

On probation revocation, it was error to order suspended sentences consecutive to a prison sentence because subdivision (b)(2) of this section, dealing specifically with suspended sentencing, did not allow suspended sentences consecutive to a prison sentence for another charge. Walden v. State, 2014 Ark. 193, 433 S.W.3d 864 (2014).

On probation revocation, it was error to order consecutive suspended sentences because subdivision (b)(1) of this section barred such sentences. Walden v. State, 2014 Ark. 193, 433 S.W.3d 864 (2014).

Although the appellate court upheld the revocation of defendant's suspended sentence, it modified the sentencing order to reflect that the two sentences were to run concurrently. Valencia v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 176 (2016).

Trial court did not err in sentencing appellant to imprisonment upon revocation of his suspended sentence where the State's evidence showed that he had been released from prison and was thereafter accused and convicted of forgery. Todd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 270, 493 S.W.3d 350 (2016).

Trial court erred in requiring defendant to complete drug and/or alcohol treatment while incarcerated because her suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) could not begin until she was released from prison, and no condition of SIS could be imposed prior to that date. Holmes-Childers v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 464, 504 S.W.3d 645 (2016).

Trial court erred in revoking defendant's suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and in sentencing her to six years' incarceration; defendant's original sentence was illegal because suspended sentences imposed with terms of imprisonment for different crimes must run concurrently, not consecutively, and the trial court failed to first correct the original sentencing order before revoking defendant's SIS, which left the original illegal sentence still in place. Dodds v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 86, 543 S.W.3d 513 (2018).

Defense counsel was not allowed to withdraw under Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(k); although counsel adequately addressed the adverse rulings from the probation revocation hearing, counsel did not address any issue of sentencing in his no-merit brief and defendant's sentencing was arguably illegal as it imposed a suspended imposition of sentence consecutive to other terms of imprisonment, an issue that could be raised at any time, and should have been addressed by counsel. Norton v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 370, 553 S.W.3d 765 (2018).

Suspension.

In a case where a trial court revoked defendant's suspended impositions of sentence (SIS) for two felonies, the trial court did not err by imposing a sentence that included two consecutive suspended sentences; defendant had 6 years to do in prison from the consecutive running of his terms of imprisonment and, when he was released from imprisonment, he was on SIS for concurrent total of 5 years. An incorrect oral ruling did not control the appellate court's decision. Jones v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 167 (2014).

Defendant's underlying suspended sentence was an illegal sentence because the trial court ran it consecutively to the two six-year terms of imprisonment and the sentence was statutorily required to run concurrently with the prison sentences. Reyes v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 55, 454 S.W.3d 279 (2015).

Cited: Vann v. State, 16 Ark. App. 199, 698 S.W.2d 814 (1985); Jones v. State, 52 Ark. App. 179, 916 S.W.2d 766 (1996); Bramucci v. State, 76 Ark. App. 8, 62 S.W.3d 10 (2001); Byrd v. State, 84 Ark. App. 203, 138 S.W.3d 109 (2003); Donovan v. State, 95 Ark. App. 378, 237 S.W.3d 484 (2006).