Atkins v. State
2014 Ark. 393
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Appellant Marcus Terrell Atkins was convicted in 2007 of first-degree battery, kidnapping, felon in possession of a firearm, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony; aggregate sentence 480 months.
- Appellant filed pro se postconviction relief under Rule 37.1 (2007), denied, belated appeal permitted and affirmed.
- In 2012, Atkins filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence under §16-90-111 alleging the court—not the jury—imposed the 15-year firearm sentence, and claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.
- The trial court dismissed the petition; appellate review follows under the standard for postconviction reversals (not clearly erroneous).
- The court ultimately affirms, holding the sentence not illegal and within statutory bounds, and that certain claims are not cognizable under §16-90-111 or are trial errors to be addressed otherwise.
- Statutory framework governs sentencing decisions; the 15-year sentence for using a firearm is discretionary within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 37.1 petition supported ineffective assistance claim. | Atkins argues counsel failed to object to the court submitting sentencing to itself. | State contends §16-90-111 does not authorize collateral challenge for ineffective assistance; issues are not cognizable. | No reversible error; ineffective-assistance claim not cognizable under §16-90-111. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not submitting sentencing to the jury. | Argues for jury determination of sentencing under the weapon-fire provision. | Statute does not authorize trial-court error claims under §16-90-111; trial error addressed on direct appeal. | Not cognizable under §16-90-111; no reversal. |
| Whether the sentence was illegal on its face. | Claims the fifteen-year sentence exceeds statutory bounds. | Sentence within the statutory maximum; §16-90-111 allows correction of illegal sentences at any time. | Sentence not illegal; within statutory limits. |
| Whether the petition otherwise established jurisdictional flaws requiring relief. | Argues for relief due to improper sentencing procedure. | Not supported; jurisdictional grounds lack merit under cited authorities. | No jurisdictional error established; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Colvin, 2013 Ark. 203 (Ark. 2013) (sentence within statutory framework; no excessiveness)
- Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464 (Ark. 2011) (sentencing statute governs; no void sentence)
- Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304 (Ark. 1999) (illegality subject-matter jurisdiction; can be raised any time)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494 (Ark. 1999) (illegality and jurisdiction principles in sentencing)
- Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519 (Ark. 1990) (definition of illegal sentence; facial illegality standard)
- Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533 (Ark. 1989) (statutory limits; legality of sentence within bounds)