Beyard v. State, 2017 Ark. 203

In 2015 Joshua Anthony Beyard was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment; no direct appeal was taken.
On June 27, 2016 (≈17 months after judgment), Beyard filed a pro se motion titled a "nunc pro tunc order correcting and/or modifying the sentence" in the trial court.
Beyard asserted the presumptive sentence for first-degree murder was 360 months under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-804(3)(c)(1) and that the court failed to provide written reasons for any upward departure.
He also requested an evidentiary hearing, transportation for a hearing, and appointment of counsel.
The trial court denied the motion as untimely; the Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed Beyard’s appeal, holding the motion was a Rule 37.1 collateral attack and was not filed within Rule 37.2(c)(i)’s ninety-day deadline for jury convictions that did not appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Beyard’s motion to modify sentence was timely	Beyard argued sentence was illegal because presumptive term is 360 months and court failed to give written reasons for departure; sought modification via nunc pro tunc	State argued the motion was a collateral attack governed by Rule 37 and therefore untimely (filed ≈17 months after judgment)	Motion untimely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c)(i); appeal dismissed
Whether the sentence was illegal on its face	Beyard implicitly contended the imposed sentence was illegal because it exceeded presumptive term	State maintained sentence was within statutory range so facially legal; issue is manner of imposition, not facial illegality	Sentence was within statutory limits; claim was about manner of imposition and therefore governed by Rule 37
Whether trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing or transporting Beyard or appointing counsel	Beyard requested hearing, transport, and counsel to pursue his motion	State argued those requests were moot if the underlying motion was untimely and thus not grantable	Requests were moot because the Rule 37 claim was untimely and relief could not be granted

Thompson v. State, 2016 Ark. 380 (per curiam) (sentence within statutory limits is legal)
Winnett v. State, 2015 Ark. 134 (per curiam) (Rule 37 governs claims that sentence was illegally imposed)
Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602 (per curiam) (postconviction relief for illegal imposition must be raised under Rule 37)
Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286 (Rule 37 timing supersedes former statutory correction deadlines)
McClinton v. State, 2016 Ark. 461 (per curiam) (Rule 37 time requirements are mandatory)
Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 216 (per curiam) (substance of pleading controls; Rule 37 timing applies regardless of label)