Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, a person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this chapter shall be imprisoned for a term up to two (2) times the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to two (2) times the fine otherwise authorized, or both.
For purposes of this section, an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense if, before his or her conviction of the offense, the offender has at any time been convicted under this chapter or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating to a narcotic drug, marijuana, depressant, stimulant, or a hallucinogenic drug.
A.C.R.C. Notes.
Acts 2011, No. 570, § 1, provided: “The intent of this act is to implement comprehensive measures designed to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and contain correction costs.”
Publisher's Notes.
As enacted, Acts 2005, No. 1994, contained two sections designated as § 304. The two sections were subsequently designated § 304[A] and § 304[B].
Amendments.
The 2005 amendment inserted “or her” in (b).
The 2011 amendment inserted “Unless otherwise provided in this chapter” in (a); and substituted “§ 5-64-419 or § 5-64-441” for “§ 5-64-401(c)” in (c).
Case Notes
Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Doubling a sentence for a person convicted twice for a drug-related offense is not cruel and unusual punishment. Pridgeon v. State, 266 Ark. 651, 587 S.W.2d 225 (1979).
Due Process of Law.
The defendant was not deprived of due process of law where circuit court, on defendant's conviction of possession of heroin with intent to deliver after his conviction of other drug offenses, patterned its procedures for fixing punishment after those provided in the habitual criminal act. Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510, 534 S.W.2d 230 (1976).
Equal Protection.
This section in doubling of the normal penalty imposed for a drug violation upon a second conviction, does not violate the right to equal protection of the laws because it authorizes a more severe punishment than that provided for in the general Habitual Offender Act. Pridgeon v. State, 266 Ark. 651, 587 S.W.2d 225 (1979).
Habitual Criminals.
This section, which was enacted after § 5-4-501, does not preclude sentencing a habitual criminal under § 5-4-501. When two punishment statutes exist, a court is not prevented from using the more stringent provision. Russell v. State, 295 Ark. 619, 751 S.W.2d 334 (1988).
Sentencing.
If the testimony supports the conviction for the offense in question and if the sentence is within the limits set by the legislature, supreme court is not at liberty to reduce it even if court believes the sentence to be unduly harsh. Parker v. State, 302 Ark. 509, 790 S.W.2d 894 (1990).
Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged the judgment that imposed an aggregate sentence of 1080 months'
imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The trial court did not err by denying appellant's petition, because he presented only conclusory allegations to support his claim that his sentence was improperly enhanced under this section using an out-of-state conviction.
Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (2013).
Petitioner's post-conviction claim that his sentence was illegal because the jury only gave the numbers “70” and “20” and did not specify years or months was rejected, because 70 months would fall short of the 20-year mandatory minimum for his cocaine conviction and 20 months would fall short of the eight-year minimum for his marijuana conviction, pursuant to former §
5-64-401 and subsection (a) of this section.
Lewis v. State, 2013 Ark. 105 (2013).
Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2017). · cites it 20דArk. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (c). Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-401(c) (Supp.”
Laime v. State, 60 S.W.3d 464 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4דAn amended criminal information eliminated the cocaine charge but added that Laime had a prior criminal conviction for illegal drug possession and was subject to enhanced sentencing under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (Repl.1997). On May 5, 1999, the circuit judge held a hearing on…”
Lewis v. State, 272 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12דSentencing for drug offenses in Arkansas is not governed by the ranges established for other offenses in § 5-4-401, but by ranges set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Repl. 2005). Appellant was sentenced pursuant to the enhancement in Ark.”
Parker v. State, 790 S.W.2d 894 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 4דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (1987). Appellant first argues that he was prejudiced by an erroneous jury instruction.”
Owens v. State, 926 S.W.2d 650 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2דArk. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (a) (Repl. 1993).”
Sossamon v. State, 789 S.W.2d 738 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6ד” The appellee, however, relies upon Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (b) (1987) which provides that an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense if the offender has been convicted under any statute of the United States or of any state, relating to drug possession.”
Russell v. State, 751 S.W.2d 334 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2ד1976) [ Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (1987)], which provides: (a) any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this chapter shall be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that otherwise authorized, or both.”
Robinson v. State, 878 S.W.2d 405 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2דEach is a Class Y felony, which pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (a)(l)(i) is punishable by 10 to 40 years imprisonment, or life; and a fine not exceeding $25,000.”
Kedrick T. Darrough, Sr. v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 119 (Ark. 2020). · cites it 12דDarrough alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegally enhanced under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-408 (Repl. 1997). On appeal, Darrough argues that the trial court erred by not correcting and reducing his sentence because he was not subject to an enhancement…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408(a) — 3 cases
Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2017). “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (c). Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-401(c) (Supp.”
Lewis v. State, 272 S.W.3d 113 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). “Sentencing for drug offenses in Arkansas is not governed by the ranges established for other offenses in § 5-4-401, but by ranges set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Repl. 2005). Appellant was sentenced pursuant to the enhancement in Ark.”
Kedrick T. Darrough, Sr. v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 119 (Ark. 2020). “Darrough alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegally enhanced under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-408 (Repl. 1997). On appeal, Darrough argues that the trial court erred by not correcting and reducing his sentence because he was not subject to an enhancement…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408(b) — 2 cases
Kedrick T. Darrough, Sr. v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 119 (Ark. 2020). “Darrough alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegally enhanced under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-408 (Repl. 1997). On appeal, Darrough argues that the trial court erred by not correcting and reducing his sentence because he was not subject to an enhancement…”
Sossamon v. State, 789 S.W.2d 738 (Ark. Ct. App. 1990). “” The appellee, however, relies upon Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (b) (1987) which provides that an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense if the offender has been convicted under any statute of the United States or of any state, relating to drug possession.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408(c) — 1 case
Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2017). “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (c). Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-401(c) (Supp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.