Opinion

Joe Morris v. State of Arkansas

  • 2025 Ark. App. 366
Court
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Filed
Jun 4, 2025
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.2%

The opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 366

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No.CR-24-720

Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025

JOE MORRIS APPEAL FROM THE POPE

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 58CR-20-81]

V.

HONORABLE JAMES DUNHAM,

STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE

APPELLEE

AFFIRMED

BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge

Joe Morris appeals from a Pope County Circuit Court sentencing order revoking his

suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. 1

On appeal, he asserts that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his request for a

continuance in order to retain new counsel. We affirm.

In January 2020, the State charged Morris with failure to appear. He was also charged

as a habitual offender. In April 2021, Morris pled guilty and received a sentence of five

years’ imprisonment and three years’ SIS. In December 2023, the State petitioned to revoke

Morris’s SIS, alleging that on 7 November 2023, he had committed the offenses of

1

This is a companion case to No. 58CR-20-61, in which Morris had been sentenced

to five years’ imprisonment and three years’ SIS. The circuit court held a combined

revocation hearing for both cases but issued separate sentencing orders. Morris has filed

separate appeals, and today we hand down opinions in both cases.

1

possession of methamphetamine, cocaine, or heroin with purpose to deliver; possession of

a Schedule VI controlled substance with purpose to deliver; and fleeing.

The court convened a revocation hearing on 28 June 2024. This hearing was

combined with the revocation hearing in 58CR-20-61. The relevant argument presented

at the revocation hearing has been detailed in a separate opinion also handed down today.

See Morris v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 365, ___S.W.3d ___. Because the issue on appeal and

argument presented here are identical to those presented in the companion case, it is

unnecessary to restate them. On the basis of the reasoning set forth in Morris, we affirm

Morris’s revocation.

Affirmed.

WOOD and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.