ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

DIVISION IV

THOMAS EARL LOY

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-1376

October 29, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

CR-2001-781-I, CR-98-260-I

HON. JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Larry D. Vaught, Judge

Appellant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) in CR-2001-781-I and to violating the terms of a probationary sentence in CR-98-260-I. After a separate sentencing hearing, the court sentenced him to six years' imprisonment for each charge. The sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal he contends that the sentences1 were excessive and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant in light of the evidence and special circumstances of the case. We affirm.

Appellant's argument on appeal, for which he does not cite any authority, is simply that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant to six years in the Department of Correction in light of the evidence and special circumstances of the case. He contends that the sentence is extreme because, although he pled guilty in both cases, he was merely guilty as a "technicality." He elaborates that the drugs for which he pled guilty to possessing belonged to his son and that he was unaware of the drugs until the arresting officer searched the vehicle in which he and his son were riding. Appellant suggests that if the officer had not brought the drugs found in the car and placed them beside appellant in the patrol car, he would not have ingested them "in a fit of passion" in an attempt to protect his son.

Although the trial court's bench ruling is not abstracted, the record of the ruling does not reflect that appellant objected that the sentence was excessive. Appellant's counsel did ask the court if it considered the videotape from the police officer's car, which apparently showed that appellant was not aware of the drugs before he and his son were stopped. Because appellant did not object at the sentencing hearing that his sentence was excessive, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Walker v. State, 330 Ark. 652, 955 S.W.2d 905 (1997). Moreover, if a sentence is within the range of punishment set by the General Assembly, we are not free to reduce it, even if we consider the sentence to be unduly harsh. Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53, 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002). Appellant pled guilty to a Class C felony possession of methamphetamine under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (Supp. 2003); a Class C felony according to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(4) (Repl. 1997) is punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than three years and not more then ten years. Appellant was sentenced to six years, which is within the statutory range. It is within the trial court's discretion to impose punishment within the statutory range. Miles v. State, 59 Ark. App. 97, 954 S.W.2d 286 (1997). Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion.

Affirmed.

Crabtree and Baker, JJ., agree.

1 Although appellant appears to be appealing the sentences received in both CR-2001-781-I and CR-98-260-I, the record on appeal is insufficient to review the sentence in CR-98-260-I. The record does not contain the original order placing appellant on probation in CR-98-260-I or the judgment and commitment order arising from the revocation at issue. Because the record is insufficient, we cannot conduct a review of the sentence in CR-98-260-I.