NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

SAM BIRD, JUDGE

DIVISION I

KAREN MARIE SHEETS,

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR01-1164

JULY 3, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CR96-585-II,

HON. EDWARD T. SMITHERMAN,

JUDGE

REVERSED AND DISMISSED

This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of a circuit court to consider the State's second petition for revocation of probation of appellant Karen Marie Sheets. The State concedes error and we hold that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Sheets after the twenty-four-hour jail sentence from the first revocation hearing had been placed into execution; therefore, we reverse and dismiss.

On June 2, 1998, Sheets pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and the Garland County Circuit Court sentenced her to ten years' supervised probation, subject to the usual conditions, including the payment of a fine of $2,500 and court costs of $160. The State filed a petition to revoke probation and a hearing was held on November 24, 1998. The trial court found that Sheets had willfully violated conditions of her probation by failing to pay her fine and court costs. However, the court stated that, in lieu of revocation of herprobation, Sheets would be required to serve twenty-four hours in the Garland County Detention Center, and that she would thereafter continue on probation upon the same terms and conditions. Sheets served the twenty-four hours of jail time.

The State filed a second petition for revocation on February 6, 2001, alleging that Sheets had violated her probation by being in possession of a controlled substance. Sheets filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the State no longer had jurisdiction, because her original sentence to probation had already been revoked on November 24, 1998, when she was sentenced to twenty-four hours in jail. A hearing was held on July 24, 2001, and Sheets again argued that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court denied Sheets's motion and found that she had violated the conditions of her probation, for which she was sentenced to a term of eight years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From that decision comes this appeal.

We agree with the State and with Sheets that the trial court lost jurisdiction over Sheets's case when it sentenced her to a term of imprisonment as a result of the State's first petition for revocation. A sentence must be in accordance with the statutes in effect on the date of the crime. State v. Ross, 344 Ark. 364, 39 S.W.3d 789 (2001). By the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-309(f) (Repl. 1997), "[i] f the court revokes a suspension or probation, it may enter a judgment of conviction and may impose any sentence on the defendant that might have been imposed originally for the offense of which he was found guilty...."(Emphasis added.) The judgment of conviction in this case reflects that the judge

sentenced Sheets to twenty-four hours of imprisonment and the sentence was put into execution when she was placed into custody. Notwithstanding the trial judge's pronouncement at the first revocation hearing that he was not revoking Sheets's probation, the effect of modifying her original sentence by ordering her to serve twenty-four hours in jail was to revoke her original sentence. The trial court had no authority to modify the original sentence without revoking it. Therefore, when the court granted the State's first petition for revocation and sentenced Sheets to serve a term of twenty-four hours in the Garland County Detention Center, that modification of the original sentence was tantamount to a revocation of her original sentence notwithstanding the court's order that, after her release, Sheets was to continue on probation on the same terms and conditions as originally ordered on June 2, 1998.

Our supreme court has held that a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify or amend an original sentence once that sentence is put into execution. See Bagwell v. State, 346 Ark. 18, 53 S.W.3d 520 (2001); Pike v. State, 344 Ark. 478, 40 S.W.3d 795 (2001); DeHart v. State, 312 Ark. 323, 849 S.W.2d 497 (1993). This long standing rule was changed, however, when the legislature amended Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-301 with Act 1569 of 1999 to give circuit courts the power to modify original sentences even when a conviction has already been entered. However, Act 1569 did not go into effect until April 15, 1999, and has no retroactive effect, thus it has no application in this case. See Bagwell v. State, supra.

We hold that the circuit court lost subject-matter jurisdiction over Sheets once it executed her sentence of additional jail time at the first revocation hearing and that the courtdid not have authority to extend probation or hold the second probation-revocation hearing. See Pike v. State, supra. We reverse and dismiss Sheets's eight-year sentence in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

Reversed and dismissed.

Stroud, C.J., and Crabtree, J., agree.