ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CHIEF JUDGE JOHN F. STROUD, JR.

DIVISION IV

SENEQUA CHATT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 00-1299

August 29, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR-93-70]

HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

On February 19, 1993, appellant, Senequa Chatt, pleaded guilty to forgery, a Class C felony, and received a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence as a result of that guilty plea. On July 6, 2000, the State filed a petition to revoke appellant's suspended imposition of sentence on the bases that she had failed to live a law-abiding life because she had committed the offense of theft; had failed to notify the appropriate authorities of her current address; and had failed to work regularly at suitable employment. At the hearing on the petition to revoke, evidence was presented that appellant had taken an item of clothing from a West Memphis Family Dollar Store without paying for it and had attempted to take other items from the store, which appellant denied. At the close of all the evidence, the trial judge found that appellant had violated her suspended imposition of sentence by failing to lead alaw-abiding life and sentenced her to four years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On a

ppeal, appellant does not argue that the evidence was not sufficient to revoke her suspended imposition of sentence; rather, her sole argument is that the trial court erred in departing from the presumptive sentence of eighteen months provided under the sentencing guidelines and sentencing her to forty-eight months in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

This argument is not preserved for our review. Although appellant's counsel stated prior to the trial court's announcement of punishment that the presumptive sentence was eighteen months, no objection was made after the trial court announced its sentence of forty-eight months. The appellate court will not consider an argument contesting a sentence if the appellant failed to object in the trial court when the sentence was imposed. Johnson v. State, 328 Ark. 526, 944 S.W.2d 115 (1997). Defendants who make no objection at the time sentence is imposed cannot complain of it on appeal. Ladwig v. State, 328 Ark. 241, 943 S.W.2d 571 (1997). Because no objection was made at the time the trial court imposed the sentence, this argument is now barred on appeal.

Nevertheless, even if this argument had been preserved for appeal, appellant could not prevail. The offense underlying appellant's suspended imposition of sentence was a Class C felony, and the range of punishment for a Class C felony is "not less than three (3) years nor more than (10) years." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(4) (Repl. 1997). "The statutory minimum and maximum ranges for a particular crime shall govern over a presumptive sentence if the presumptive sentence should fall below or above such ranges." Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-803(b)(3)(C) (Supp. 1999). See also Pickett v. State, 321 Ark. 224, 902 S.W.2d 208 (1995). The presumptive sentence was less than the statutory range of punishment; therefore, the trial judge had no option but to sentence appellant within the statutory range of three to ten years, which he did. We affirm appellant's sentence.

Affirmed.

Pittman and Jennings, JJ., agree.