214 KOZAL V.,STATE [248 PATRICIA KOZAL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS 5-5476 451 S. W. 2d,224 Opinion delivered March 9, 1970 ' CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL Ft . ERROR— GROUNDS OF REVIEW. — Alleged error in .fixing minimum . time to be served by defendant in the Department of Correc-tions-can not be consideied on appeal when no objection is made to the entry of judgment or the penitentiary commitment thereon, or when the point is not presented to the trial court in a motion for new nial. David 0. Partain, for appellant. Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. JOHN A. FOGLEMAN, Justice. Appellant asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error in its judgment revoking a previous suspension of sentence on a felony charge. The particular point upon which appel-
ARK.j 15 lant relies is that no minimum sentence was fixed' fri the original judgment of the Court suspending sentence entered on November 19, 1968, so 'that the' court had' no authority to fix a minimurri sentence in its later' judgment revoking the suspension and orderihg appellant committed to the Department of Correction's. Apz` pellant argues that Section 28 of Act No. 50 of 1968, which became effective on February 21; 1968, governs this situation rather than Act 48, SectiOn 28(2); or ACt 94, Section 1(2) of 1969. The record reflects no objection to' the judginentf of the court fixing the minimum paro1e time at . one-. third of the sentence. The motion for riew trial' simply alleges that the court's order revoking the guspensinri, of sentence previously imposed by the cdurt and -the finding that appellant had not been- of good' conduct and behavior are contrary to both the law and the, evidence introduced pertaining to this issue and • case. No mention whatever is made of the fixing of a minimum parole time. We held in Petty v. State, 245 Ark: 808, 434 S. W. 2d 602, that we could not consider alleged error , in fixing the minimum, time to be served in the Department of Corrections when no objection was made to the entry of the judgment or the penitentiary commitment thereon or when the point . was not presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial. Upon, that authority, the judgment is affirmed.,'
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.