Green v. State
2017 Ark. 361
Ark.2017Background
- Rickie Green pled guilty to conspiracy to commit residential burglary (Class C) and theft of property between $1,000 and $6,000 (Class D) and received identical judgments of 240 months imprisonment on each count.
- The felony information and plea agreement stated Green was charged and pleading as a habitual offender; the court orally confirmed he understood he was being sentenced as a habitual offender.
- The written judgment forms, however, did not indicate (no checkmark) that Green was sentenced as a habitual offender.
- Green filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 arguing the sentences are illegal on their face because the judgment does not reflect habitual-offender status and the Department of Correction misapplied statutes to deny parole.
- The circuit court denied relief; Green appealed and also moved for appointment of counsel in the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Green's sentences are illegal on their face because they exceed statutory maximums or lack habitual-offender notation | Green: judgment fails to show habitual-offender status; as entered, sentences exceed statutory maximums | State: circuit court denied petition (implicitly arguing sentences not subject to correction on the asserted grounds) | Reversed: sentences illegal on face; circuit court erred in denying relief |
| Whether aggregate 240-month sentences exceed statutory maximum for Class D (theft) and Class C (conspiracy) offenses | Green: 240 months for each count exceeds statutory caps unless properly sentenced as habitual offender | State: (implicit) sentencing valid as imposed | Held: For Class D, even with habitual status aggregate cannot exceed 180 months; for Class C, absent habitual finding statutory maximum is 120 months — judgment exceeds both |
| Whether § 16-90-111 is the proper vehicle to challenge parole calculations by ADC | Green: ADC misapplied statutes and denied parole eligibility | State: ADC parole calculation is not a ground to void original judgment | Held: ADC’s parole determination is not grounds under § 16-90-111; it does not make the original sentence illegal |
| Whether appellate court should appoint counsel for Green | Green: moved for appointment of counsel on appeal | State: no response in opinion | Held: Motion for appointment of counsel denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. State, 502 S.W.3d 524 (Ark. 2016) (sentence-illegality under § 16-90-111 presents subject-matter-jurisdiction issue)
- Bell v. State, 522 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. 2017) (sentence is illegal on its face when it exceeds the statutory maximum)
- Looper v. Madison Guar. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 729 S.W.2d 156 (Ark. 1987) (appellate court cannot undertake fact-finding or retry the case)