Heard v. State
2014 Ark. App. 674
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- In June 2009 Heard pleaded guilty to failure to register/failure to comply with reporting requirements; plea documents and colloquy acknowledged he was a habitual offender with at least four prior felonies.
- A second-amended judgment filed August 18, 2009 sentenced Heard to 36 months with a suspended imposition of a 120-month SIS term, but the judgment did not check the box reflecting habitual-offender status.
- In July 2013 the State filed a petition to revoke Heard’s suspended sentence alleging new offenses and failure to pay costs.
- At the December 2013 revocation hearing the court found violations, revoked SIS, and sentenced Heard to 12 years’ imprisonment; Heard argued that because the 2009 sentencing order did not show habitual-offender status, the maximum remaining exposure was 7 years.
- The State relied on the plea statement, the guilty-plea colloquy, and the court’s authority to correct clerical errors to show Heard had in fact been sentenced as a habitual offender.
- The appellate court affirmed the revocation and remanded for correction of the August 18, 2009 judgment to reflect habitual-offender status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was illegal because the 2009 judgment failed to show habitual-offender status | Heard: Judgment lacked the habitual-offender check, so maximum remaining term was 10 minus time served (7 years); 12-year sentence is illegal | State: Plea statement and colloquy show Heard was sentenced as a habitual offender; the missing check is a clerical error the court can correct | Court: Affirmed; missing notation was a clerical error and may be corrected nunc pro tunc, so sentence lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fountain, 350 Ark. 437, 88 S.W.3d 411 (explaining a sentence is illegal if the trial court lacked statutory authority)
- Garduno-Trejo v. State, 379 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (judgment or decree is not effective until filed; discussed in context of when documents take effect)
- Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 (clerical corrections and the court’s authority to make the record speak the truth)
- Reed v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 61 (per curiam) (recognizing a clerical error in failing to mark habitual-offender status can be corrected and does not prevent enforcement)