Page:McGhee v. State, 334 Ark. 543 (1998).pdf/2

Rh

consider arguments unsupported by convincing authority, unless it is apparent without further research that they are well taken.
 * 1) COURTS—PRECEDENT—NO COMPELLING REASON OR AUTHORITY GIVEN FOR OVERRULING CASE.—Where the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the supreme court's refusal to overrule Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W. 2d 240 (1994), would result in injustice or great injury, and its argument was made without compelling reason nor citation to authority, the supreme court declined to overrule the case.

Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; John W. Cole, Judge; reversed.

Montgomery, Adams, & Wyatt, PLLC, by: Dale E. Adams, for appellant.

Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

R T, Justice. This case involves the second revocation of probation of appellant, Brian McGhee, who was charged with two counts each of breaking or entering and theft of property. Appellant entered guilty pleas and was placed on thirty-six months' probation and ordered to pay a fine of $250.00, court costs of $113.25, restitution of $400.00, and a monthly fee of $20.00 to the adult probation program. Appellant's probation was revoked on March 7, 1996, and appellant was sentenced to sixty days' imprisonment in the Department of Community Punishment with probation to follow incarceration. After serving his imprisonment, the State filed a second petition for revocation based on new allegations on June 9, 1997. After appellant's motion to dismiss was denied, the trial court sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison for the two original counts of breaking or entering and twelve months in jail for the two theft of property charges. The State concedes that if we adhere to precedent, the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke appellant's probation the second time; but they urge this court to overrule Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47, 876 S.W.2d 240 (1994), which holds that a plea of guilty, coupled with a fine and a suspended imposition of sentence, constitutes a conviction, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to amend or modify a sentence