Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 429 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-820 TAVARES MONTGOMERY, SR. Opinion Delivered September 23, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 35CR-24-190] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge This appeal arises from the conviction of Tavares Montgomery, Sr., on a charge of Class B felony possession of a firearm by certain persons. This was originally submitted as a no-merit appeal on February 6, 2026; however, considering our May 20, 2026 opinion, see Montgomery v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 318, in which we ordered rebriefing, Montgomery’s counsel now submits a merit appeal. Montgomery argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the sentence imposed was excessive. We disagree. I. Facts and Procedural History On December 25, 2023, Pine Bluff police detective Ryan Edwards responded to a report that a man had fired a gun at a passing vehicle. The victim described the shooter as a black male wearing a white long-sleeve shirt, dark pants, and a stocking cap. While searching the area, Detective Edwards encountered Montgomery, who matched that description, walking nearby. Detective Edwards asked Montgomery if he could search him for weapons. Montgomery refused, and Detective Edwards detained him because he matched the description provided by the victim. Detective Edwards then asked Montgomery whether he had a firearm on his person. Montgomery stated that he had a gun in his waistband, and Detective Edwards recovered a Glock 29 10mm pistol from him. A review of Montgomery’s criminal history revealed prior felony convictions including aggravated assault, possession of a firearm by certain persons, theft of property, and second-degree criminal mischief. On March 15, 2024, Montgomery was charged with one count of terroristic act, a Class B felony, one count of possession of a firearm by certain persons, a Class B felony, and two counts of aggravated assault, Class D felonies. The firearm- possession charge was severed, and Montgomery waived his right to a jury trial on that charge. A bench trial was held on September 15, 2025. At trial, Detective Edwards testified concerning his encounter with Montgomery and identified photographs of the pistol recovered from Montgomery’s waistband. Detective Edwards also identified the pistol itself as the same firearm he had recovered on December 25, 2023. Montgomery objected to the admission of the firearm on authentication and chain- of-custody grounds, and the circuit court overruled his objection. The State also introduced evidence of Montgomery’s prior felony conviction. 2 At the close of the State’s case, Montgomery moved for a directed verdict, arguing, “[O]ur motion [for] directed verdict is based on authentication and custodian of the records of the pistol.” The circuit court denied his motion. Montgomery then testified in his own defense. He admitted that he possessed the gun on the day of his arrest and acknowledged that, as a felon, he knew he was prohibited from possessing it. He explained that he carried the gun for protection because he lived in a dangerous neighborhood and had been threatened with a firearm the night before his arrest. Defense counsel informed the circuit court that, after the denial of the directed-verdict motion, the defense strategy was to seek leniency in sentencing. Montgomery also acknowledged prior convictions for aggravated robbery and possession of firearms by certain persons. At the close of all the evidence, Montgomery did not renew his directed-verdict motion. The circuit court found him guilty of possession of a firearm by certain persons and sentenced him to thirteen years in the Arkansas Division of Correction pursuant to a sentencing order entered on October 9, 2025. Montgomery filed a timely notice of appeal on October 21, 2025, and this appeal followed. II. Discussion A. Sufficiency of the Evidence To convict someone of the offense of possession of a firearm by certain persons, the State was required to prove two elements: (1) Montgomery possessed a firearm, and (2) he 3 previously had been convicted of a felony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-103(c)(1) (Supp. 2023). Montgomery does not dispute the second element. Montgomery specifically argues that that the evidence submitted by the State at trial was insufficient to show his actual possession of a firearm. We do not reach the merits of his argument because it was not properly preserved for appellate review. To preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a criminal defendant must move for a directed verdict at both the close of the State’s case and at the close of all the evidence. E.g., McElroy v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 270, 712 S.W.3d 801. While Montgomery moved for a directed verdict after the State rested its case, he did not renew his motion after he testified on his own behalf. Accordingly, his argument is not preserved for appeal. B. Sentence It is the circuit court’s function to impose a sentence, and it is likewise the circuit court’s obligation to exercise its discretion in the imposition of that sentence. Ludwick v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 347, 635 S.W.3d 330. This standard of review is a high threshold, and it requires that a circuit court not act improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Gill v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 83, 731 S.W.3d 381. Sentencing in Arkansas is entirely a matter of statute, and no sentence shall be imposed other than as prescribed by statute. McKee v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 538, 700 S.W.3d 509. Montgomery was convicted of possession of a firearm by certain persons, a Class B felony, because of his prior violent-felony conviction. A Class B felony carries a sentencing range of five to twenty years. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(3) (Repl. 2013). The circuit court 4 sentenced Montgomery to 156 months, or thirteen years, which falls within the statutory range. Montgomery nevertheless argues that his sentence was excessive because the circuit court did not impose the minimum sentence, failed to give sufficient weight to his acceptance of responsibility, and did not permit him to further address the court regarding sentencing. But when a sentence falls within the limits established by the legislature, this court will not alter it even if the sentence is considered unduly harsh. See, e.g., McGahey v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 30, 683 S.W.3d 211. Such is the case here. Montgomery was charged with a Class B felony pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103(c)(1). At the time of his crime, a Class B felony was punishable by imprisonment of five to twenty years. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(3). Because Montgomery’s thirteen-year sentence is within the statutory range, it is not excessive. See Brookshire v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 315, 633 S.W.3d 782. Affirmed. THYER and MURPHY, JJ., agree. John Ogles, for appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walker K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 5