Reynolds v. State Of Ark.
| Decision Date | 13 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 09-316,CR 09-316 |
| Citation | 2011 Ark. 5 |
| Parties | WILLIE REYNOLDS, Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
This court affirmed appellant Willie Reynolds's conviction for capital murder. Reynolds v. State, 310 Ark. 688, 840 S.W.2d 795 (1992). A federal proceeding resulted in issuance of a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring a competency hearing. See Reynolds v. Norris, 86 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 1996). The trial court subsequently ordered mental health evaluations that found appellant was initially unfit to proceed, but, at a later date after treatment, was competent. In 1998, before the date scheduled for his new trial, appellant entered a negotiated plea to first-degree murder and received a sentence of 360 months' imprisonment. See Reynolds v. State, 02-418 (Ark. July 5, 2002) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2008, appellant filed in the trial court a petition under Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 (Supp. 2003). The court dismissed the petition, finding it was in effect an untimely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (1998). Appellant lodged an appeal of the order in this court. We agree that the petition was not timely, even if appellant presented a claim that was cognizable under the statute.
Appellant alleged in the petition that his sentence was illegal on its face and a double-jeopardy violation, but the basis for his claim was that the court had failed to properly note on the judgment credit that was due to him for time served for the first conviction. Appellant asserted that the jail-time credit indicated on the judgment included time served in prison on his previous sentence that should have given him credit for meritorious good time but did not. Because appellant did not allege that the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum sentence imposed by statute, the argument he presented, at best, was one seeking modification of a sentence illegally imposed. See Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602, ___S.W.3d ___(when the sentence given is within the maximum prescribed by law, the court has authority to impose it); see also Crawford v. Cashion, 2010 Ark. 124, ___S.W.3d___(per curiam) ().
Appellant's request for relief was directed towards the calculation of his accrual of meritorious good time and the method used by the Department of Correction to determine his eligibility for parole. It was not concerned with an actual reduction of the sentence imposed, and, as a result, the petition stated facts that supported neither a claim to correct an illegal sentence nor a claim to correct a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. State
...2011 Ark. 395384 S.W.3d 488Vera Ann ARNOLD, Appellantv.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.No. CR 10353.Supreme Court of Arkansas.Sept. 29, 2011 ... [384 S.W.3d ... ...
-
Vance v. State
... 2011 Ark. 243 383 S.W.3d 325 Curtis Lavell VANCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 10598. Supreme Court of Arkansas. June 2, 2011 ... ...
-
Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc.
... 2011 Ark. 157 381 S.W.3d 21 Otis CAMPBELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellant ... any possible question about the power of the courts to regulate the practice of law in the state. McKenzie v. Burris, 255 Ark. 330, 341, 500 S.W.2d 357, 364 (1973). We have also recognized, ... ...
-
Gibbs v. Primelending
...2011 Ark. 255381 S.W.3d 829Mark and Karla GIBBS, Petitionersv.PRIMELENDING, a Plains Capital Company, et ... Frazier and Emily Milholen Reynolds, Rogers, for respondent Corinthian Title Company, Inc.Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, Little Rock, ... them to eLender Services which used eLender Escrow as the escrow agent even though the State of California had previously revoked the authority of eLender Escrow to act as an escrow agent ... ...