Crossno v. State

The majority opinion recognizes that the appellant “contends that the trial court exceeded the bounds of its authority in imposing a felony sentence for what he insists is a misdemeanor.” In response to appellant’s argument that this is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal, the majority cites the recent case of Harrod v. State, 286 Ark. 277, 691 S.W.2d 172 (1985). In that case the appellant contended his convictions for manufacturing and possessing marijuana should be reversed because, when the alleged offenses occurred, they were neither felonies nor…