Grissom v. State
2013 Ark. 417
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 2008 Wesley Elisha Grissom pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 660 months (55 years).
- The original judgment omitted a habitual-offender notation; an amended judgment adding that notation was entered March 31, 2009.
- Grissom filed two pro se petitions (Dec. 14, 2011 and Jan. 17, 2012) under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 seeking correction of an allegedly illegal sentence and reduction, arguing his sentence was enhanced without proof of four or more prior felonies.
- The trial court denied both petitions the day they were filed, and Grissom timely appealed both denials.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the sentence was illegal on its face and whether § 16-90-111 relief was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is illegal on its face because Grissom was not proven a habitual offender with 4+ priors | Grissom: sentencing enhancement invalid because record did not establish four or more prior felony convictions | State: sentence falls within statutory range for a Class A felony with 4+ priors; process/validity of priors does not make a within-range sentence facially illegal | Court: Held sentence was within statutory range and therefore not illegal on its face; § 16-90-111 relief denied |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying § 16-90-111 petitions without relief | Grissom: entitled to correction because enhancement was unsupported | State: trial court correctly denied relief because sentence was authorized by statute | Court: Denial was not clearly erroneous; no entitlement to postconviction relief under § 16-90-111 |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304 (trial court may correct illegal sentence under § 16-90-111)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494 (authority to correct illegal sentence exists)
- Peterson v. State, 317 Ark. 151 (process validating habitual-offender finding does not render an otherwise within-range sentence facially illegal)
- Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519 (void or illegal sentence defined as illegal on its face; exceeds statutory maximum)
- Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533 (same)