Henry v. State, 2017 Ark. 28

Robert E. Henry pleaded guilty (on the record treated as nolo contendere) in Faulkner County to possession (23CR-14-791) and delivery (23CR-14-817) of controlled substances and was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent 144-month terms (96 months suspended in one case).
On July 7, 2016, Henry filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 seeking correction of an illegal sentence covering both cases.
The trial court held a hearing on August 8, 2016; Henry told the court he no longer wished to pursue the petition after learning the sentences would run concurrently.
The court entered an order on August 24, 2016, granting Henry’s request to dismiss the petition; Henry filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 22, 2016 and lodged an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record (including an amended information showing a habitual-offender charge) and concluded Henry abandoned his claims; because the appeal lacked merit and was moot, the appeal was dismissed and the mandamus petition was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court must correct an allegedly illegal sentence under § 16-90-111	Henry argued his sentence(s) were illegal and sought correction under § 16-90-111	State argued the trial court had authority to address illegal-on-its-face sentences and that Henry abandoned his petition	Court held Henry abandoned his § 16-90-111 claims; appeal lacked merit and was dismissed
Whether Henry’s dismissal of his petition was effective though not a formal written motion	Henry asserted he did not make a formal motion to dismiss the petition	Record shows Henry told the court he was dismissing/dropping the petition at the hearing	Court held Henry’s on-the-record statement constituted abandonment; no error in dismissal
Whether an appeal from denial of § 16-90-111 relief should proceed when plainly without merit	Henry sought appellate relief from the trial court’s handling of his petition	State argued appeals that clearly lack merit will not be permitted to proceed	Court dismissed appeal as meritless and the mandamus petition as moot
Effect of pleas of nolo contendere vs. guilty on postconviction relief	Henry’s pleas were characterized in the judgments as guilty; at plea hearing court treated them as nolo contendere	State noted Arkansas law treats nolo contendere the same as guilty for postconviction purposes	Court relied on established law that nolo contendere is treated as guilty and that sentences are the same

Halfacre v. State, 460 S.W.3d 282 (Ark. 2015) (section 16-90-111 allows challenge to facially illegal sentences at any time)
Ashby v. State, 761 S.W.2d 912 (Ark. 1988) (pleas of nolo contendere are treated the same as guilty pleas)
Seaton v. State, 920 S.W.2d 13 (Ark. 1996) (procedural rules treat guilty and nolo contendere pleas the same for postconviction relief)