Joseph Jean Cossey v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 47
Digitally signed by Elizabeth ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Perry
Date: 2022.08.10 13:12:50 DIVISION I
-05'00' No. CR-19-675
Adobe Acrobat version:
2022.001.20169
Opinion Delivered: January 29, 2020
JOSEPH JEAN COSSEY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SHARP
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NOS. 68CR-17-185, 68CR-17-246]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO
CORRECT SENTENCING ORDER

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Joseph Jean Cossey appeals the Sharp County Circuit Court order revoking his

probation. On appeal, Cossey argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion in

arrest of judgment. We affirm the revocation but remand the case with instructions to

correct the sentencing order.

On October 4, 2018, the Sharp County Circuit Court sentenced Cossey to sixty

months’ probation for possession of methamphetamine or cocaine with the purpose to

deliver pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-420(b)(1) (Repl. 2016),

possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-

443(a)(2) (Supp. 2019), two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-443(b), and residential burglary.
On March 12, 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke Cossey’s probation alleging

that he had violated his probation terms by shoplifting, associating with persons engaged in

criminal activity, and failing to pay court-ordered fines, restitution, and costs. On June 26,

the court held a revocation hearing and found that Cossey had committed all three

violations listed in the petition. The court revoked Cossey’s probation and sentenced him

to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment and 120 months’ suspended sentence.

On June 28, Cossey filed a motion in arrest of judgment. He asserted that his

sentence violated his Fifth Amendment due-process rights and his Sixth Amendment right

to a jury trial under the United States Constitution. He cited United States v. Haymond,

139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). On July 12, the court entered an order denying Cossey’s motion.

This appeal followed.

On appeal, Cossey argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion in

arrest of judgment because pursuant to Haymond, his rights under the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments were violated when the circuit court imposed a sentence more than the

statutory minimum. In other words, he argues that Haymond requires that the circuit court

may sentence him to only the statutory minimum on the revocation of his probation.

We disagree with Cossey’s interpretation of Haymond and its applicability to this

case. In Haymond, the United States Supreme Court considered whether 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(k), a provision of the supervised-release statute that applied to certain offenses,

infringed on a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by a judge, “acting without

a jury and based only on a preponderance of the evidence,” to impose “new punishment

in the form of a prison term” that increased “the legally prescribed range of allowable

2
sentences” simply because the defendant violated the terms of his supervised release. 139

S. Ct. at 2378. The plurality opinion concluded that it did, explaining that “a jury must

find any facts that trigger a new mandatory minimum prison term” upon revocation of

supervised release. Id. at 2380 (emphasis removed). Thus, Haymond does not require a

court to sentence a defendant to only the statutory minimum on a revocation probation.

Accordingly, we find Haymond inapplicable to this case and hold that the circuit court did

not err by denying Cossey’s motion in arrest of judgment.

We therefore affirm Cossey’s revocation, but we must also address an error in the

court’s sentencing order. The sentencing order reflects that the court revoked Cossey’s

probation on two counts of residential burglary. However, Cossey was on probation for

only one count of residential burglary. On remand, we direct the court to correct this

error.

Affirmed; remanded to correct sentencing order.

GRUBER, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.

R.T. Starken, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for

appellee.

3