Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2025

Joe Morris v. State of Arkansas

Joe Morris v. State of Arkansas
Arkansas Court of Appeals · Decided June 4, 2025
2025 Ark. App. 366

Joe Morris v. State of Arkansas

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

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. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.