Fischer v. State
532 S.W.3d 40
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Robert William Fischer was convicted on six counts of a class C felony for offenses involving sexually explicit material depicting a child and sentenced to ten years on each count, to run consecutively.
- Fischer’s direct appeal resulted in affirmed convictions; he later filed an amended pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 seeking relief from an illegal sentence.
- The trial court denied the amended petition; Fischer filed a timely notice of appeal but the record was tendered 111 days late, and he moved for a rule on the clerk to lodge the record.
- Fischer’s core claim was that he was convicted of only one class C felony and therefore his multiple consecutive ten-year sentences were illegal or unconstitutionally long.
- The trial court found Fischer was convicted of six counts and properly sentenced to ten years on each count; consecutive sentences were authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-403(a).
- The majority denied Fischer’s motion and affirmed the denial of relief, concluding Fischer failed to show his sentence was illegal on its face under § 16-90-111; Justice Hart dissented arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the transcript was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fischer’s consecutive sentences are illegal on their face | Fischer: Only one class C felony conviction existed, so he could not legally receive multiple consecutive ten-year terms; sentence is unconstitutionally long | State: Fischer was convicted of six separate class C felony counts; each count carries a 3–10 year range and consecutive sentences are permitted by statute | Held: Denied — sentences are facially legal; ten-year terms per count are within statutory range and consecutive sentencing was permitted |
| Whether § 16-90-111 permits relief despite filing delay | Fischer: Invoked § 16-90-111 to challenge sentence as illegal on its face (which can be raised at any time) | State: Time-limited claims about manner of sentencing are governed by Rule 37; but facial-illegality claims remain viable under § 16-90-111 | Held: Section allows facial-illegality claims at any time, but Fischer did not demonstrate facial illegality |
| Whether concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing claim is cognizable in postconviction relief | Fischer: Argued sentencing statute required a single concurrent term | State: Whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively is a trial-court sentencing exercise and must be raised at trial; not a proper postconviction basis unless facially illegal | Held: Issue is not proper for postconviction relief absent facial illegality; Fischer failed to meet burden |
| Whether this court had jurisdiction given the late record tendering | Fischer: Sought rule on clerk to lodge record and pursue appeal | State/Majority: Declined to address rule on clerk merits because Fischer cannot prevail on facial-illegality claim | Held: Majority proceeded to deny motion on substantive grounds; dissent argued lack of jurisdiction due to late transcript filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 (standard of review for postconviction relief)
- Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519 (definition of an illegal sentence on its face)
- Blanks v. State, 300 Ark. 398 (burden to demonstrate facial illegality)
- Bratton v. Gunn, 300 Ark. 140 (appellant’s burden to produce record showing error)
- Miles v. State, 350 Ark. 243 (burden on party to bring up record to demonstrate error)
- Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92 (sentencing discretion for concurrent vs. consecutive terms)
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (sentence exceeding statutory maximum is facially illegal)