CourtListener 10606373•Roderick Montgomery v. State of Arkansas
Roderick Montgomery v. State of Arkansas
CourtListener 10606373Arkctapp18.09.2019
Gesamter Gesetzestext
Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 377
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CR-18-508
Opinion Delivered: September 18, 2019
RODERICK MONTGOMERY
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY
V. CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 02CR-17-121]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge
This is a companion case to Montgomery v. State, 2019 Ark. App 376 (case No. CR-
18-500) also handed down today.1 In the present case, Roderick Montgomery pleaded
guilty in the Drew County Circuit Court to delivery of methamphetamine, a Class B
felony; possession of a defaced firearm, a Class D felony; possession of a firearm by a felon
while in the commission of a new offense, a Class B felony; and use of a communication
device in the commission of a drug offense, a Class C felony. In the companion case
occurring in Ashley County, appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of delivery of
methamphetamine, Class C felonies, and one count of delivery of methamphetamine, a
Class B felony. Both counties are located within the Tenth Judicial District.
1
It is back after rebriefing. See Montgomery v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 128.
With appellant’s consent, the court held one sentencing hearing for all seven
convictions. In this case, the court entered a sentencing order in accordance with the jury’s
verdict sentencing appellant to ten years’ imprisonment on the methamphetamine
conviction; six years’ imprisonment on the defaced-firearm conviction; fifteen years’
imprisonment on the possession-of-a-firearm conviction; and three years’ imprisonment on
the communication-device conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively except for
the three-year sentence for use of a communication device. Appellant brings four points on
appeal alleging errors in the sentencing hearing. Because these points are identical to the
points raised in Montgomery v. State, 2019 Ark. App. ___, we affirm for the reasons set forth
in that opinion, also handed down today.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.
Ben Motal, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael A. Hylden, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.