The Arkansas Supreme Court has largely upheld the conviction of a drug dealer who sold fentanyl and methamphetamine near a church, while reversing one firearms charge due to evidentiary problems. In a Jan. 29, 2026 opinion, Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood wrote that the court affirmed six of seven convictions against Kent Parris, who received life imprisonment plus 185 years for his crimes.
The case stems from a law enforcement sting operation where Parris sold fentanyl, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia within 1,000 feet of a church. After completing the drug transaction, Parris drove away and law enforcement pursued him. Initially evading officers, Parris eventually pulled over and was arrested.
During the subsequent investigation, officers conducted searches of both Parris and his vehicle. Additionally, law enforcement walked the path of the chase looking for any evidence that might have been discarded during the pursuit. Their search yielded significant findings: a clear bag containing methamphetamine and a backpack that contained both a handgun and pills.
A jury in Arkansas County Circuit Court, presided over by Judge Donna Galloway, convicted Parris on seven separate charges. These included possession of fentanyl with purpose to deliver, possession of cocaine with purpose to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia to manufacture, delivery of methamphetamine, delivery of fentanyl, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and theft by receiving a firearm.
The severity of the charges resulted in substantial prison time. The jury sentenced Parris to life imprisonment plus an additional 185 years, with all seven sentences to be served consecutively rather than concurrently. The court also imposed a concurrent 10-year enhanced sentence specifically for certain drug crimes committed within 1,000 feet of a church, reflecting Arkansas's enhanced penalties for drug offenses near sensitive locations.
On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, Parris challenged both the sufficiency of evidence supporting his convictions and the enhancement for crimes near a church. The defense argued that the state had not presented adequate evidence to sustain the guilty verdicts.
The Arkansas Supreme Court largely rejected these arguments, finding sufficient evidence to support six of the seven convictions as well as the church enhancement. Justice Wood wrote that the evidence presented at trial was substantial enough to support the drug trafficking charges and most of the accompanying offenses.
However, the court identified one significant problem with the prosecution's case. The justices found insufficient evidence to support the theft-by-receiving conviction related to the firearm found in Parris's possession. The court determined that the circuit court had abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from an officer who claimed the firearm was reported stolen.
This evidentiary ruling represents a key aspect of the court's analysis. Hearsay evidence, which consists of out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is generally inadmissible unless it falls under specific exceptions. The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that the officer's testimony about the firearm being reported stolen did not meet the standards for admissible evidence.
"We reverse this conviction because there was insufficient evidence that the firearm was stolen property," Justice Wood wrote in the opinion, specifically addressing the theft-by-receiving charge.
The court's mixed ruling means that while Parris will continue to face the substantial prison sentence for his drug-related convictions, the firearms theft charge will be removed from his record. The reversal of this single conviction, however, does not materially affect his overall sentence given the life imprisonment term for the drug charges.
The case highlights Arkansas's strict approach to drug crimes committed near churches and other sensitive locations. The state's enhancement statute allows for additional penalties when drug offenses occur within 1,000 feet of churches, schools, or other designated areas, reflecting legislative intent to protect these community spaces from drug-related criminal activity.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision also demonstrates the importance of proper evidence handling in criminal cases. While the court was willing to affirm convictions supported by substantial evidence, it drew a clear line at accepting inadequately supported charges, particularly those relying on problematic hearsay testimony.
The case was designated as Arkansas Supreme Court Case No. CR-24-786, with the appeal originating from Arkansas County Circuit Court case No. 01DCR-22-133. The decision reinforces Arkansas courts' commitment to upholding drug trafficking convictions while maintaining evidentiary standards, particularly in cases involving enhanced penalties for location-specific offenses.