Bell v. State
2015 Ark. 370
Ark.2015Background
- Albert D. Bell was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life terms; this Court affirmed his convictions and sentences in 1997 (State v. Bell).
- Bell filed multiple postconviction challenges over the years (Rule 37 and other petitions); prior petitions and denials were affirmed by this Court.
- In 2010 Bell sought resentencing under Graham v. Florida (2010), arguing Eighth Amendment protections for juveniles; the trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed in 2011.
- In February 2015 Bell filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 asserting his sentence was illegal because he was a juvenile and an accomplice who did not kill or intend to kill the victims.
- The trial court denied the § 16-90-111 petition as an unauthorized second Rule 37 petition and on the merits, and Bell appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding the sentence was not facially illegal and Bell’s Graham-based argument had been previously resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16-90-111 allowed relief for an alleged illegal sentence based on juvenile-accomplice status | Bell argued his life sentence was illegal because he was a juvenile accomplice who neither killed nor intended to kill, invoking Graham | State argued the sentence was within statutory range and prior decisions resolved Graham claim; trial court also treated petition as an unauthorized second Rule 37 filing | Denied — the sentence was not facially illegal and Graham-based claim had been previously rejected for Bell |
| Whether the sentence was "illegal on its face" under § 16-90-111 (subject-matter jurisdiction) | Bell claimed his life sentence violated Eighth Amendment principles for juveniles | State noted sentence fell within statutory punishment ranges for first-degree murder | Denied — sentence did not exceed statutory maximum; thus not facially illegal |
| Whether Graham v. Florida renders Bell eligible for parole as a juvenile accomplice | Bell sought application of Graham to obtain resentencing/parole eligibility | State relied on prior appellate rulings rejecting Bell’s Graham argument and that Graham concerns nonhomicide juvenile offenders | Denied — Graham does not change Bell’s status; issue was previously decided in Bell v. State |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying relief as an unauthorized second Rule 37 petition | Bell contended he filed under § 16-90-111, which permits correction of illegal sentences at any time | State maintained petition was an unauthorized successive postconviction filing and, substantively, lacked merit | Court affirmed on substantive grounds (sentence not illegal); did not reverse on Rule 37 procedural basis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1997) (affirming Bell’s convictions and sentences)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- Walden v. State, 2014 Ark. 193, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) ( § 16-90-111 allows correction of illegal sentences as jurisdictional issue)
- Halfacre v. State, 2015 Ark. 105, 460 S.W.3d 282 (Ark. 2015) (portion of § 16-90-111 preserving ability to challenge facially illegal sentences remains in effect)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494, 989 S.W.2d 515 (Ark. 1999) (sentence is facially illegal only if it exceeds statutory maximum)