JAMES EDWARD WHITNEY v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, 2018 Ark. 21

James Edward Whitney was convicted by a Washington County jury on 18 counts of possession of child pornography and received an aggregate prison term (6,480 months), $180,000 in fines, and various fees.
The judgment provided that fines and fees would be collected in installments and payments begin within 60 days of release from the Department of Correction.
More than one year after entry of judgment, Whitney filed a pro se petition in circuit court asking the court to "dismiss" the fines, fees, and costs because he could not pay them and to align collection with his incarceration.
The circuit court denied the petition for lack of stated facts supporting relief (i.e., failure to state a claim). Whitney sought to appeal that denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
The clerk of the Supreme Court declined to file the tendered record because the record initially lacked the correct notice of appeal; Whitney later produced a file-marked notice.
The Supreme Court treated Whitney’s filing as a motion for rule on clerk but dismissed it on the merits because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Whitney sought.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could modify or "dismiss" fines/fees after judgment execution	Whitney argued inability to pay justified dismissal or modification of fines/fees and that collection should be run concurrent with imprisonment	State (and precedent) argued once a sentence is put into execution the trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify financial penalties absent a statutory exception	Court held trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because the sentence/fines were put into execution when judgment entered; therefore Whitney cannot prevail
Whether procedural defects in the record (notice of appeal) should permit the appeal to proceed	Whitney showed a timely notice of appeal was filed and tendered; sought to excuse the clerk’s record defect	State relied on procedural requirements and the clerk’s initial rejection of the record	Court treated petition as motion for rule on clerk but dismissed on the substantive ground that the appeal could not succeed on the merits (lack of jurisdiction)

Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (2009) (trial court loses jurisdiction to modify sentence once sentence is put into execution)
Gavin v. State, 125 S.W.3d 189 (2003) (trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to amend or modify sentence after execution absent statutory exception)
Whitney v. State, 520 S.W.3d 326 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (appellate disposition of Whitney’s underlying conviction)