Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 447 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-663 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2026 REGINALD F. NALLS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 02CR-25-32-1] V. HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge Reginald Nalls appeals the Ashley County Circuit Court’s sentencing order sentencing him to 360 months of imprisonment. Specifically, he appeals the circuit court’s admission of a penitentiary pack (“pen pack”)1 in the sentencing phase because he argues the admission violated the Confrontation Clause and is inadmissible hearsay. We affirm. I. Procedural history On February 13, 2025, investigators from the Ashley County Sherriff’s Office searched Nalls and found two baggies containing over two grams of methamphetamine in his underwear. A jury found Nalls guilty of Class C felony possession of more than two grams, but less than ten grams, of methamphetamine. During the sentencing phase of Nalls’s trial, the State introduced judgments from Nalls’s prior criminal cases, which included five 1 This is a packet of an inmate’s official records. felony convictions. The State further introduced Nalls’s pen pack from his prior incarcerations in the Arkansas Division of Correction. It included a reference to an earlier felony conviction that was not contained in the other felony convictions offered by the State along with disciplinary records and statements by confidential informants. Nalls conceded that a pen pack could be used to prove the prior conviction but argued that the other portions of the document should be redacted or excluded because they were hearsay and violated his right to confrontation. Following the colloquy between counsel whether the pen pack contained inadmissible hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause, the circuit court admitted the pen pack over Nalls’s objection. Following the arguments of counsel, Nalls was sentenced to thirty years in prison and fined $500. II. Analysis An evidentiary error in the sentencing phase of a trial may be declared harmless and the appellate court may affirm when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is slight. Wilcoxon v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 458, 655 S.W.3d 686. To determine if the error is slight, the court looks to see if the defendant was prejudiced. Id. A defendant who has received a sentence within the statutory range short of the maximum sentence cannot show prejudice from the sentence itself. Tate v. State, 367 Ark. 576, 242 S.W.3d 254 (2006); Steele v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 200; Wimberly v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 190, 735 S.W.3d 480; Mills v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 476, 723 S.W.3d 649; Francis v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 214, 711 S.W.3d 308; Woolems v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 380, at 8, 690 S.W.3d 893, 898; Fowler v. State, 2 2024 Ark. App. 63, 684 S.W.3d 271. Further, a defendant cannot show prejudice if he receives the maximum term of imprisonment but does not receive the maximum fine. See Wilcoxon, supra. As a habitual offender with six prior felony convictions, Nalls faced a maximum sentence of thirty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-201(a)(2) (Repl. 2024); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b)(2)(D) (Repl. 2024); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-419(b)(1)(B) (Repl. 2024). The sentence imposed on Nalls was thirty years’ imprisonment and a $500 fine. Nalls received the maximum term of imprisonment, but he did not receive the maximum fine; accordingly, he was not prejudiced by the introduction of the pen pack. The supreme court recently had the opportunity to revisit the question of whether a defendant who has received a sentence within the statutory range short of the maximum sentence can challenge the sentence on the basis of an evidentiary ruling, but it declined to do so. See Mills, supra; Francis, supra(citing Tate v. State, 367 Ark. 576, 583, 242 S.W.3d 254, 261 (2006)). We are bound by the decision of the supreme court, and we are powerless to overrule this precedent. Watkins v. Ark. Elder Outreach of Little Rock, Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 301, at 8, 420 S.W.3d. 477, 483. Accordingly, because Nalls is unable to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the sentence, we need not consider whether the introduction of the pen pack constitutes an evidentiary error as a violation of the Confrontation Clause or was inadmissible hearsay. Affirmed. WOOD and HIXSON, JJ., agree. 3 Short Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 4