The Arkansas Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Randy Medlock, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for theft and fleeing charges. Medlock, convicted of theft by receiving and fleeing, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that there was insufficient evidence for his conviction. The court's decision, delivered on September 16, 2026, confirms the lower court's ruling and highlights the importance of jurisdiction in criminal cases.
Randy Medlock was convicted by a jury in Crittenden County on charges of theft by receiving, a Class B felony, theft by receiving, a Class C felony, and fleeing, a Class A misdemeanor. The jury sentenced him to a total of 30 years in prison. Medlock's appeal raised several issues, including the jurisdiction of the Crittenden County Circuit Court, the sufficiency of the evidence against him, and the legality of his sentence.
The case began on May 2, 2023, when an arrest warrant was issued for Medlock. Initially, he faced multiple charges, including felony theft by receiving and making a terroristic threat. After being arrested in Memphis, Tennessee, Medlock was extradited to Arkansas. He waived his right to counsel and chose to represent himself in court.
During the trial, Medlock raised concerns about the court's jurisdiction. However, he was informed that the Crittenden County Circuit Court had the authority to hear his case, as the offenses occurred within the county. On the day of the trial, Medlock participated in jury selection but later chose to leave the proceedings, claiming the jurisdiction issue was unresolved. The trial continued in his absence.
The state presented evidence, including testimony from the camper's owner, William Morrison, who stated that his camper was stolen using a truck found on Medlock's property. Detective Dallas Watson testified about the search warrant executed at Medlock's residence, where stolen property was discovered. Medlock was also accused of fleeing from law enforcement when they attempted to arrest him.
In its ruling, the court addressed Medlock's claims regarding jurisdiction, stating, "the circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes." The court emphasized that Medlock's argument lacked merit, as the offenses occurred in Crittenden County, giving the court both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court noted that Medlock failed to preserve this argument for appeal. The court explained that a defendant must make a motion for a directed verdict during the trial to challenge the evidence's sufficiency. Since Medlock voluntarily chose to leave the trial, he did not make such a motion, and his argument was deemed waived.
Medlock also argued that his sentence was illegal, claiming it exceeded the maximum allowed by law. The court clarified that a sentence is illegal only if it is beyond the court's authority. The court found that Medlock's sentences for the Class B and Class C felonies were within the legal limits, confirming that his 30-year sentence was lawful.
The court concluded, "the Crittenden County Circuit Court had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over Medlock for the charges against him." It affirmed the lower court's decision, reinforcing the importance of proper legal procedures in criminal cases.
The ruling has significant implications for individuals facing criminal charges in Arkansas, as it underscores the importance of understanding jurisdiction and the necessity of following procedural rules during trials. Medlock's case serves as a reminder that defendants must actively participate in their trials and preserve their rights to appeal on specific grounds.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Medlock will seek further appeals in this case. His arguments have already been addressed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, and any future attempts to challenge the ruling will need to present new legal grounds. The outcome of this case may influence future defendants who choose to represent themselves in court, highlighting the risks associated with waiving legal counsel.