NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE JOSEPHINE LINKER HART

DIVISION I

EMANUEL ILO

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-1087

October 30, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2000-39]

HONORABLE DAVID LEE REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Emanuel Ilo, entered conditional pleas of guilty to the crimes of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a drug premises, and he was sentenced to a total of ten years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress items seized from his residence because the State failed to establish circumstances obviating the need for police to knock and announce their presence before entering his residence. We affirm.

We direct the parties to the case of Kisha Ilo v. State, 350 Ark. 138, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2002). As the parties in the case at bar are aware, a joint suppression hearing was held for appellant and Kisha Ilo, resulting in identical transcripts. Further, a review of the record in appellant's case reveals that no additional evidence was introduced and no additionalarguments or rulings were made that would render appellant's case distinguishable from Kisha

Ilo's case. Essentially, we are considering a case that for our purposes is identical to that of Kisha Ilo's case.

Kisha Ilo argued at the suppression hearing that items seized during a search of the Ilo residence should be suppressed because (1) the search warrant did not specifically authorize a no-knock entry of the residence; (2) there was no credible evidence that firearms had been seen in the residence; and (3 ) information that a firearm was seen in the residence two weeks earlier was too stale to justify a no-knock entry. The Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed with Kisha Ilo's arguments and affirmed her convictions. The court further noted that Kisha Ilo did not argue at the suppression hearing or on appeal that the mere presence of firearms on the premises, standing alone, is not sufficient to justify dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that Kisha Ilo's failure to raise the argument below precluded review of the issue on appeal, and further, the court would not raise the issue sua sponte.

Appellant raises the same credibility and staleness arguments that Kisha Ilo raised in her appeal, as well as arguing that the mere presence of firearms on the premises, standing alone, is not sufficient to justify dispensing with the knock-and-announce requirement. We must by necessity conclude that the holdings of the Arkansas Supreme Court on the issues raised in Kisha Ilo's case are likewise controlling on those same issues in appellant's case. And, even though appellant raised the remaining issue on appeal, as in Kisha Ilo's case, it was not raised at the suppression hearing, and therefore, the argument was not preserved forappellate review. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress.

Affirmed.

Jennings and Griffen, JJ., agree.