Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 381
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-25-819
CLIFTON ROBERTS Opinion Delivered: September 2, 2026
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE LITTLE RIVER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 41CR-23-45]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE TOM COOPER, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO
CORRECT THE SENTENCING
ORDER
STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge
A Little River County Circuit Court jury found appellant, Clifton Roberts
(“Roberts”), guilty of one count of delivery of methamphetamine and sentenced him, as a
habitual offender, to forty years’ imprisonment. The sentencing order provided that all items
seized or confiscated were forfeited to the “9W Judicial District.” Roberts argues on appeal
that the circuit court erred in ordering forfeiture of property. The State concedes that the
forfeiture provision should be removed from the sentencing order on remand, and we agree.
Because Roberts does not challenge his conviction, we affirm the conviction but remand for
the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing order to remove the forfeiture provision.
On May 3, 2023, Roberts was charged via criminal information with one count of
delivery of methamphetamine or cocaine under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-422(b)(2) (Supp. 2023). On October 6, 2025, the State filed an amended criminal
information to include a habitual-offender enhancement pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 5-4-501(b)(2)(C) (Supp. 2023).
The circuit court held a jury trial on October 14, 2025. At trial, Scott Bradshaw
(“Bradshaw”) with the Arkansas State Police Criminal Investigation Division testified that
he conducted a controlled buy using a confidential informant, Antonio Ruiz (“Ruiz”), on
March 28, 2022. Before the buy, Bradshaw searched Ruiz, equipped him with two cameras,
and gave him $250 to purchase fourteen grams of methamphetamine from Roberts. The
State introduced videos from both cameras without objection. The videos showed Ruiz
discussing the purchase with Roberts and exchanging money for a baggie of
methamphetamine. Bradshaw testified that after the controlled buy, Ruiz returned and gave
him the baggie.
Greg Harper, director of the Ninth West Drug Task Force, testified that he conducted
controlled drug purchases using confidential informants and had used Ruiz as an informant
approximately fifty to one hundred times. He also testified that Ruiz was given $250 and two
cameras for the controlled buy and that Ruiz returned with methamphetamine.
Ruiz testified that he had been a confidential informant for fifteen years and that, on
March 28, 2022, he purchased methamphetamine from Roberts. Ashley Anderson, a former
employee of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, testified that she tested the substance
contained in the baggie. The substance tested positive for methamphetamine and weighed
9.8045 grams.
2
After the State rested, Roberts moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State
failed to meet its burden of proof. The circuit court denied the motion. Roberts presented
no witnesses and renewed his motion for directed verdict, which the circuit court again
denied. The jury subsequently found Roberts guilty of delivery of methamphetamine.
During the sentencing phase, the State introduced certified copies of Roberts’s prior
convictions. These consisted of four sentencing orders from Sevier, Howard, and Little River
Counties entered between 2002 and 2020 and reflected that Roberts had five prior felony
convictions. There was no objection to the admission of the sentencing orders, and they were
admitted. The jury sentenced Roberts, as a habitual offender, to forty years’ imprisonment.
On October 16, 2025, the circuit court entered a sentencing order stating that “all
items seized or confiscated are hereby forfeited to the ‘9W Judicial District.’” The circuit
court did not address forfeiture when it pronounced Roberts’s sentence at trial, and the
record does not reflect that any property was seized or confiscated in connection with this
case.
Roberts’s sole issue on appeal is that the circuit court’s forfeiture order is erroneous.
Specifically, Roberts contends that the State failed to comply with the requirements of
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-505 and that the record does not reflect that any
items were confiscated or seized in this case.
Roberts maintains that no posttrial motion was necessary to preserve his challenge
because the forfeiture provision appeared without notice for the first time in the sentencing
order. When an appellant has no opportunity to object to a sentencing error in the circuit
3
court, the absence of an objection does not preclude appellate review. See, e.g., Eberlein v.
State, 315 Ark. 591, 593–94, 869 S.W.2d 12, 13–14 (1994). Here, the circuit court did not
order the forfeiture when it pronounced the sentence; the forfeiture provision appeared for
the first time in the sentencing order. Accordingly, Roberts had no opportunity to object
before the sentencing order was entered.
Additionally, although Roberts does not characterize the forfeiture provision as an
illegal portion of his sentence, his challenge concerns the circuit court’s authority to impose
the provision as part of his criminal sentence. It is well settled that an appellant may challenge
an illegal sentence for the first time on appeal, even if he did not raise the argument below.
VanOven v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 46, at 3, 380 S.W.3d 507, 510 (citing Donaldson v. State,
370 Ark. 3, 5, 257 S.W.3d 74, 76 (2007)). A void or illegal sentence is an issue of subjectmatter jurisdiction, which this court may review whether or not an objection was made in
the circuit court. Id. As discussed below, the forfeiture provision constitutes an illegal portion
of the sentence. Thus, the issue is properly before this court.
Here, the record does not reflect that any property was seized or confiscated in
connection with this case. Because there was no seized or confiscated property, there was
nothing for the circuit court to forfeit. Further, when the circuit court pronounced Roberts’s
sentence at the conclusion of the trial, it made no mention of forfeiture. The forfeiture
provision appeared for the first time in the subsequent sentencing order. The provision was
therefore unauthorized as part of the criminal proceeding.
4
Where the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a circuit
court, the sentence is unauthorized and illegal. See Bell v. State, 101 Ark. App. 144, 146, 272
S.W.3d 110, 112 (2008) (citing Sullivan v. State, 366 Ark. 183, 234 S.W.3d 285 (2006)). The
circuit court lacked the authority to impose the forfeiture provision, and it constitutes an
illegal portion of the sentence. The illegality here is limited to the unauthorized provision in
the sentencing order. Roberts does not challenge his conviction on appeal. Therefore, we
affirm his conviction but remand to the circuit court for the limited purpose of correcting
the sentencing order by removing the forfeiture provision.
Affirmed; remanded to correct the sentencing order.
GLADWIN and TUCKER, JJ., agree.
Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5