Jackson v. State
549 S.W.3d 346
| Ark. | 2018Background
- In 2012 Jackson pled guilty to robbery, kidnapping, and two counts of theft; he elected jury sentencing and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms totaling 1,080 months.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence in 2013 but remanded to correct errors in the judgment form; the appellate mandate issued December 10, 2013.
- In 2017 Jackson, proceeding pro se, filed a "petition to reconsider and/or modify sentence" seeking to present new mitigating evidence (including a claimed severe learning disability) and alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he sought a hearing to present mitigation.
- The trial court denied relief as meritless and noted the petition was untimely under available postconviction remedies; Jackson appealed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the trial court erred in denying relief, focusing on jurisdictional/time-bar issues and whether the petition invoked an avenue for relief (Rule 37.1 or Ark. Code § 16-90-111).
Issues
| Issue | Jackson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to receive new mitigating evidence after sentence execution | Jackson: § 16-90-111 allows submitting mitigating circumstances at any time; counsel was ineffective for not presenting them | State: No open-ended right; relief must be sought timely under Rule 37.1 or show an illegal sentence under §16-90-111 | Held: Denied. No authority that §16-90-111 permits unlimited post-execution mitigation; allegation is really ineffective-assistance claim and untimely |
| Whether Jackson's petition was timely under Rule 37.1 | Jackson: Did not invoke Rule 37.1 but sought reconsideration | State: Petition filed more than 60 days after appellate mandate and therefore untimely under Rule 37.2(c) | Held: Untimely; Rule 37.2(c) deadlines are mandatory and bar relief |
| Whether §16-90-111 permits relief because the sentence is illegal on its face | Jackson: Asserted right to present mitigation under §16-90-111 | State: §16-90-111 only authorizes correction of sentences illegal on their face (jurisdictional defects) | Held: Jackson made no assertion that the sentence exceeded statutory maximums; sentence not illegal on its face, so §16-90-111 relief unavailable |
| Whether Jackson’s ineffective-assistance claim could be raised in this petition | Jackson: Argues counsel failed to present mitigation re: learning disability | State: Ineffective-assistance should have been raised timely under Rule 37.1 and was not raised below; cannot be raised first on appeal | Held: Claim is untimely/forfeited; court will not consider arguments raised first on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer v. State, 532 S.W.3d 40 (Ark. 2017) (appellate-review standard; denial of postconviction relief reversed only if trial court findings are clearly erroneous)
- Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009) (once judgment and commitment enter, jurisdiction generally transfers to the executive; statutory/rule exceptions required to modify sentence)
- Maxwell v. State, 767 S.W.2d 303 (Ark. 1989) (time limits in Rule 37.2(c) are mandatory)
- Jenkins v. State, 529 S.W.3d 236 (Ark. 2017) (§16-90-111 permits correction of sentences illegal on their face at any time)
- Swift v. State, 540 S.W.3d 288 (Ark. 2018) (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised in a timely Rule 37.1 petition)
- Lambert v. State, 692 S.W.2d 238 (Ark. 1985) (sentence illegal on its face if beyond court's authority; such a defect implicates subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Maiden v. State, 438 S.W.3d 263 (Ark. 2014) (appellate court will not consider arguments without supporting authority when not manifestly well-taken)