Cason v. State, 2016 Ark. 387

James C. Cason pleaded guilty on April 4, 1991 to multiple felonies and received an aggregate fifty-year sentence.
Cason filed a motion on November 10, 2015 seeking credit for 90 days of pretrial jail time under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-404, alleging the judgment omitted the credit.
The Miller County Circuit Court denied relief, treating the claim as an untimely Rule 37.1 postconviction challenge to an allegedly illegal sentence and rejecting a nunc pro tunc correction.
The State disputed the 90‑day figure (arguing 84 days) but maintained the claim was governed by Rule 37.1 and therefore time-barred.
The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed the request could not proceed under § 5-4-404/Rule 37.1 because it was untimely, but found the record evidence (judge’s docket sheet) might show a clerical omission.
The court reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether a clerical error existed that could be corrected nunc pro tunc under Rule 60(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cason is entitled to jail‑time credit under § 5-4-404	Cason: judgment omitted 90 days of pretrial credit granted at sentencing	State: claim is a challenge to an illegal sentence and is untimely under Rule 37.1; 90 days also disputed	Court: Untimely for § 5-4-404/Rule 37.1 — no relief under that route
Whether the omission can be corrected nunc pro tunc under Rule 60(b)	Cason: docket sheet shows credit was granted at plea; omission was clerical	State: trial court lacked jurisdiction; substantive modification not allowed late	Court: Remanded for trial court to decide if omission was clerical and correctable nunc pro tunc
Whether a request for jail‑time credit is always a Rule 37.1 collateral attack	Cason: framed as clerical correction, not collateral attack	State: generally a request for jail credit is a collateral attack -> Rule 37.1	Court: Generally governed by Rule 37.1, but circumstances permitting, a true clerical error may be fixed under Rule 60(b)
Whether the trial court’s denial for lack of proof (docket silence) was correct	Cason: docket did reflect credit, contradicting trial court finding	State: questioned relevance; argued jurisdictional bar	Court: Trial court erred in finding no proof; remand to assess sufficiency of docket evidence

Cooley v. State, 322 Ark. 348, 909 S.W.2d 312 (1995) (request for jail‑time credit treated as a claim for modification of an illegally imposed sentence requiring Rule 37 proceedings)
Delph v. State, 300 Ark. 492, 780 S.W.2d 527 (1989) (court’s jurisdictional limits on correcting jail‑time credit and analysis of agreed credit at plea)
Francis v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 285, 265 S.W.3d 117 (2007) (definition of true clerical error correctable nunc pro tunc)
Griggs v. Cook, 315 Ark. 74, 864 S.W.2d 832 (1993) (nunc pro tunc cannot be used to enter what the court should have done but did not)
McCuen v. State, 338 Ark. 631, 999 S.W.2d 682 (1999) (omissions in judgments that reflect clerical mistakes may be corrected nunc pro tunc)
Barber v. State, 2016 Ark. 54, 482 S.W.3d 314 (definition of illegal or void sentence — illegal only if it exceeds statutory maximum)