Bismillah Rahim Muhammad v. State of Arkansas
624 S.W.3d 300
Ark.2021Background:
- Appellant Bismillah Rahim Muhammad pleaded guilty (Sept. 2014) as a habitual offender and was sentenced on five felony counts, with all sentences imposed consecutively for an aggregate 420 months (35 years).
- Sentences included two Class B felonies (delivery of methamphetamine: 180 months + 180 months suspended; unauthorized use of property: 120 months), one Class D felony (possession of paraphernalia: 120 months), and two Class D felonies for endangering a minor (suspended impositions: 180 months and 240 months).
- Muhammad filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 alleging his sentences were illegal on their face because they departed from presumptive guidelines and violated Blakely/Apprendi jury-right principles.
- The circuit court denied relief as untimely and improper but made no specific findings on the Blakely/Apprendi-based arguments; Muhammad had waived jury at plea.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial as to claims that challenged the manner of sentencing (untimely under Rule 37.2(c)), but reversed and remanded as to the two suspended impositions for endangering a minor because they were facially illegal: the suspensions were ordered consecutively contrary to statute and one suspended term exceeded the statutory maximum for a Class D habitual-offender felony.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Muhammad's §16-90-111 petition (claiming Blakely/Apprendi violation and guideline departures) alleged a facially illegal sentence or a time-barred challenge to the manner of sentencing | Muhammad: Sentences illegal on their face due to guideline departures and Blakely/Apprendi violations; he was not allowed to challenge upward departures or was not advised re: jury sentencing | State: Claims these attacks go behind the judgment (manner of imposing sentence), are governed by Rule 37.2(c) timeliness, and sentences were within statutory maxima because of prior convictions | Held: Claim attacks the manner of sentencing (not facially illegal) and was untimely for §16-90-111 relief; no relief on these grounds |
| Legality of consecutive suspended impositions for two Class D endangering counts | Muhammad: (did not expressly raise these as facially illegal below) asserted overall illegality of sentences | State: Suspended terms must run concurrently with separate imprisonment terms; suspended period may not exceed statutory maximum | Held: Reversed as to these suspensions: they were improperly ordered consecutively (must be concurrent) and one suspended term (240 months) exceeded the 15-year statutory maximum and is facially illegal |
| Whether Muhammad may raise a constitutional challenge to Ark. Code Ann. § 11-90-804 for the first time on appeal | Muhammad: § 11-90-804 is unconstitutional because presumptive sentencing is discretionary | State: Argument not preserved; constitutional claims must be raised in circuit court to be considered on appeal | Held: Court declined to consider the statute challenge—issue not preserved |
| Whether appellate court may address facially illegal or void sentences sua sponte | Muhammad: seeks relief for illegal sentence generally | State: N/A | Held: Court may address illegal/void sentences sua sponte because such defects implicate subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts that increase penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (applies Apprendi to sentencing-guideline departures)
- Redus v. State, 566 S.W.3d 469 (Ark. 2019) (§16‑90‑111 relief limited to sentences illegal on their face)
- Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (suspended sentences cannot be run consecutively to imprisonment imposed for a different charge; suspensions must run concurrently as required by statute)
- Waller v. Kelley, 493 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2016) (§16‑90‑804 does not apply where the sentence was agreed to at plea)
- Scherrer v. State, 584 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. 2019) (appellate courts may address illegal sentences sua sponte)