Beyard v. State, CR-17-42
Decision Date | 01 June 2017 |
Docket Number | No. CR-17-42,CR-17-42 |
Citation | 2017 Ark. 203 |
Parties | JOSHUA ANTHONY BEYARD APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPEAL DISMISSED.
In 2015, appellant Joshua Anthony Beyard was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree. The trial court accepted the jury's recommended sentence, and Beyard was sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. No appeal was taken. On June 27, 2016, Beyard filed in the trial court a pro se motion for a "nunc pro tunc order correcting and/or modifying the sentence." The trial court denied the motion, and Beyard brings this appeal.
Beyard argued in his motion that he was entitled to have his sentenced modified because the presumptive sentence for first-degree murder pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-804(3)(c)(1) (Repl. 2006 & Supp. 2007) was 360 months' imprisonment. He also contended that he was entitled to a modification of his sentence on the ground that the trial court failed to issue written reasons for its departure from the presumptive sentence. Beyard raises the same arguments on appeal and also asserts that the trial court erred by not acting on his motion seeking an evidentiary hearing, an order that he be transported to the trial court for a hearing, and appointment of counsel.
We dismiss the appeal because Beyard's motion to correct or modify his sentence was not timely filed.1 Beyard did not assert that his sentence was outside the statutory range for first-degree murder or that the sentence was otherwise illegal on its face. If a sentence is within the limits set by statute, it is legal. Thompson v. State, 2016 Ark. 380, at 4 (per curiam), reh'g denied (Dec. 8, 2016). Beyard's claim was that his sentence was imposed in an illegal manner; accordingly, it was a request for relief cognizable under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2016).
A request for modification or reduction of sentence based on the assertion that a sentence was imposed in an illegal manner must be raised in a petition timely filed in accordance with Rule 37.2(c)(b). Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(b) (); see also Winnett v. State, 2015 Ark. 134, at 4, 458 S.W.3d 730, 732 (per curiam); Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602, at 6, 357 S.W.3d 909, 913 (per curiam).
Pursuant to Rule 37.2(c)(i), to be considered timely filed, any claim that a sentence was illegally imposed must be filed in the trial court within ninety days of the date of entry of the judgment if the petitioner was found guilty by a jury or the court and elected not to appeal from the judgment. See Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam) ( ). Regardless of the label placed on a pleading by the petitioner, a pleading that mounts a collateral attack on a judgment seeking to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner is governed by the time provisions of the Rule. See Green v. State, 2016...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Proctor v. Payne
...sentence is within the limits set by statute, it is legal. Collier v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 170, 2018 WL 2251147 (citing Beyard v. State , 2017 Ark. 203, 2017 WL 2378181 ). Thus, because Proctor’s gross-disproportionality argument would require an evaluation of the circumstances of his case, h......
-
Conley v. Kelley
...Conley's delivery sentence is not facially invalid, and he is not being detained for an illegal period of time. See Beyard v. State , 2017 Ark. 203, 2017 WL 2378181 (stating that if a sentence is within the limits set by statute, it is legal). Conley cites no law mandating the entry of a ne......
-
Jackson v. State, CR–17–972
...a means to challenge a sentence at any time on the ground that the sentence is illegal on its face remains in effect. See Beyard v. State , 2017 Ark. 203. For that reason, the trial court had authority to grant relief under the statute if the sentence imposed on Jackson had indeed been ille......
-
Fischer v. State, CR–17–469
...to challenge a sentence at any time on the ground that the sentence is illegal on its face remains in effect. See Beyard v. State, 2017 Ark. 203, at 2–3, 2017 WL 2378181. For that reason, the trial court had authority to grant relief under the statute if the sentence imposed on Fischer had ......