Jaylon Martin v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2019 Ark. App. 558
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Digitally signed by Elizabeth
Perry
DIVISION I
Date: 2022.08.09 11:18:05 -05'00'
Adobe Acrobat version: No. CR-19-290
2022.001.20169

Opinion Delivered: December 4, 2019
JAYLON MARTIN
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. FOURTH DIVISION
[NO. 60CR-18-2098]

STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT,
JUDGE

AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Jaylon Martin pled guilty to second-degree battery, residential burglary, and

aggravated assault. The Pulaski County Circuit Court sentenced him to five years’

imprisonment on each count to run concurrently with a five-day credit for time he had

served in jail. Martin appeals the sentencing order and argues that the circuit court denied

him his statutory right to allocution. We affirm.

On October 16, 2018, Martin and two codefendants, Melanie Culbreath and Paula

Moore, entered guilty pleas to second-degree battery, residential burglary, and aggravated

assault. On December 6, the court held a sentencing hearing for Martin and Culbreath,

and they were represented by the same counsel. The State presented testimony from the

victim and introduced photographs of his injuries and the crime scene. Defense counsel
informed the court that he did not have any witnesses. The State and defense counsel

made closing statements, and the court thereafter sentenced both Martin and Culbreath.

After the court pronounced the sentences, Culbreath made a pro se request to speak, but

the court denied her request and advised her to discuss the issue with her attorney. On

December 19, the court entered an amended sentencing order. This appeal followed. 1

On appeal, Martin argues that the circuit court denied him his statutory right to

allocution at the sentencing hearing. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-106(b)

(Repl. 2016) provides that a defendant appearing for judgment must be asked if he has any

legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced against him. The purpose of

the statute is to give the accused, upon sentencing, an opportunity to show any cause why

sentence should not be pronounced. Clark v. State, 264 Ark. 630, 573 S.W.2d 622 (1978).

The failure to allow a defendant to do so can amount to reversible error. Goff v. State, 341

Ark. 567, 19 S.W.3d 579 (2000). However, we do not reverse for failure to allow

allocution when there has been no objection to the failure below. Id.; Gamet v. State, 2017

Ark. App. 206, 518 S.W.3d 130.

In this case, our review of the record shows that Martin did not make an objection

to the circuit court at the sentencing hearing—his codefendant made the objection.

1
Although this appeal follows the entry of a guilty plea, the sentencing was a
separate procedure not integral to the plea, so our court has appellate jurisdiction. A
defendant may appeal following a guilty plea when the appeal is from a decision that was
neither a part of the guilty-plea acceptance nor the sentencing procedure which was an
integral part of the guilty-plea acceptance. Hodge v. State, 320 Ark. 31, 894 S.W.2d 927
(1995). In other words, when the appellant’s appeal involves nonjurisdictional issues that
occurred subsequent to his guilty plea, we will address the merits of his argument on
appeal. Burgess v. State, 2016 Ark. 175, 490 S.W.3d 645.

2
Consequently, in the absence of a proper objection to the circuit court, we will not

reverse on that basis.

Affirmed.

GLADWIN and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender,

for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

3