Gilliland v. State
2014 Ark. 149
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Gilliland was convicted by a jury in 2009 of rape (life) and second-degree sexual assault (240 months).
- He challenged the judgment in postconviction proceedings under Rule 37.1, which were denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2012 Gilliland filed a pro se petition under §16-90-111 to correct an illegal sentence, which was denied.
- The trial court held the Rule 37.2(c) time limits jurisdictional and outside-time petition concerns barred relief.
- Gilliland asserted numerous trial and sentencing defects, including ineffective assistance claims and alleged illegal sentencing.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the petition was not timely under Rule 37.2(c) and the sentences were within statutory limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 37.2(c) petition | Gilliland argues timely relief under Rule 37.2(c) was ignored. | State contends petition filed outside sixty-day mandate period lacks jurisdiction. | Petition untimely; lacks jurisdiction. |
| Rule 37.1 vs §16-90-111 applicability | Claims could be cognizable under Rule 37.1. | Rule 16-90-111 governs illegal-sentence relief and supersedes Rule 37.1 where applicable. | Rule 37.1 governs cognizable claims; time limits enforceable; 16-90-111 claims barred by timeliness. |
| Illegality of sentence | Sentence imposed illegally or outside statutory range. | Sentences within statutory range and not illegal on their face. | Sentences within statute; no illegal sentence. |
| Effect of trial errors and ineffective assistance claims | Ineffective assistance and trial errors entitle relief under §16-90-111/Rule 37.1. | Such claims either cognizable only under Rule 37.1 or not subject to §16-90-111. | Claims not cognizable under §16-90-111; time limits control; no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grissom v. State, 2013 Ark. 417 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.2(c) time limits are jurisdictional)
- DeLoach v. State, 2010 Ark. 79 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; postconviction relief standards)
- Purifoy v. State, 2013 Ark. 26 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 governs cognizable claims regardless of label)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 243 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 time limitations apply)
- Hickman v. State, 2012 Ark. 359 (Ark. 2012) (timeliness governs postconviction relief)
- Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2012) (jurisdictional effect of Rule 37.2(c))
- Mason v. State, 2014 Ark. 29 (Ark. 2014) (trial court lack of jurisdiction if relief not properly sought)
- Reynolds v. State, 2011 Ark. 5 (Ark. 2011) (timeliness and limits to reduction of sentence)
- Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 291 (Ark. 2013) (subject-matter jurisdiction to correct sentence)
- Skinner v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 383 (Ark. 2011) (jurisdictional aspects of sentence corrections)
- Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (Ark. 2012) (jurisdiction to correct illegal sentence)
- Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304 (Ark. 1999) (authorities on illegal sentences and corrections)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494 (Ark. 1999) (illegal-sentence correction authority)
- Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519 (Ark. 1990) (definition of illegal sentence; face-of-the-sentence analysis)
- Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533 (Ark. 1989) (face-of-the-sentence legality standard)
- State v. Colvin, 2013 Ark. 203 (Ark. 2013) (sentencing within statutory range)
- Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464 (Ark. 2011) (sentencing requirements and statutory compliance)