Bridgeman v. State
2017 Ark. App. 321
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Bobby Bridgeman pled guilty in Pope County to breaking or entering in exchange for dismissal of a theft charge and a recommended sentence of 10 years in ADC with 5 years suspended; the plea was taken while the State alleged habitual-offender status, which raises the sentencing range.
- The original information charged residential burglary and theft; an information filed June 3, 2016, reflected the reduced charge and habitual-offender allegation.
- The trial court accepted Bridgeman’s plea, advised him of the habitual-offender allegation and the 0–15 year range, and Bridgeman stated he understood and was satisfied with counsel.
- The sentencing order initially omitted checking the habitual-offender box; the court later amended the sentencing order nunc pro tunc to show the habitual-offender designation.
- Bridgeman filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging he was illegally sentenced beyond the Class D range (0–6 years), that he was sentenced as a habitual offender without conviction, that counsel was ineffective for failing to explain consequences of the suspended sentence, and that he was convicted of a crime he had not been charged with.
- The trial court denied the Rule 37.1 petition without a hearing; Bridgeman appealed to the Court of Appeals, which exercised jurisdiction following the Arkansas Supreme Court’s March 2, 2017 transfer of many Rule 37 cases to the Court of Appeals (Barnes).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bridgeman’s plea knowingly and voluntarily entered given the charges? | Bridgeman contends he was convicted of breaking or entering though not charged and unaware of habitual-offender sentencing. | Record shows court advised him of the reduced charge, habitual-offender allegation, sentencing range, and Bridgeman acknowledged understanding and satisfaction with counsel. | Court held plea was knowing and voluntary; trial-court findings not clearly erroneous. |
| Was the sentence illegal because it exceeded the Class D range (0–6 years)? | Bridgeman argued the 10-year sentence exceeded the statutory Class D range absent habitual-offender status. | The information/plea included the habitual-offender allegation raising the range to 0–15 years; the omission on the original order was clerical and corrected nunc pro tunc. | Court held sentence was not illegal once the sentencing order was amended to reflect habitual-offender status. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not explaining consequences of the suspended sentence? | Bridgeman claims counsel failed to explain that violation could expose him to an additional 15 years. | Law limits revocation exposure to the statutory maximum; Bridgeman cannot show counsel’s performance caused him to plead rather than go to trial. | Court applied Strickland and held Bridgeman failed to show deficient performance or prejudice. |
| May Bridgeman raise new or expanded claims on appeal? | On appeal Bridgeman enlarged and altered his Rule 37.1 claims with new factual assertions. | Appellate review is limited to the matters raised below; new claims or added factual substantiation are not considered. | Court refused to consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional constitutional claims; voluntariness standard)
- Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115 (postconviction review after guilty plea focuses on voluntariness and competent counsel)
- Robinson v. State, 2016 Ark. 211 (application of Strickland in guilty-plea context)
- Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76 (Court of Appeals assumed jurisdiction over many Rule 37 matters, per footnote)