James Ray Thompson v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, 623 S.W.3d 115

In August 2010, James Ray Thompson was convicted of two counts of rape by forcible compulsion (Class Y felonies).
The trial court sentenced him to two 120-month terms to run consecutively (aggregate 240 months).
On direct appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed convictions and the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Thompson filed a pro se habeas petition in the Lincoln County Circuit Court while incarcerated there, arguing the consecutive sentences were illegal because the jury had recommended concurrent sentences.
The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition, concluding the trial court had authority to impose consecutive sentences. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed that dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences when the jury recommended concurrent sentences	Thompson: jury recommended concurrent sentences, so trial court could not impose consecutive sentences	State: whether sentences run consecutively or concurrently is within the trial court's discretion; jury recommendation is nonbinding	Court held the trial court had authority to impose consecutive sentences; jury recommendation is nonbinding
Whether habeas corpus was the proper remedy for this claim	Thompson: sentence is illegal and habeas relief is appropriate	State: habeas relief requires facial invalidity of judgment or lack of jurisdiction; those are not shown here	Court held habeas was not warranted because the sentence was authorized by statute and the trial court had jurisdiction

Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (2014) (standard of review for habeas-corpus dismissal)
Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (2015) (habeas proper only when judgment facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction)
Baker v. Norris, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007) (trial-court subject-matter jurisdiction to try criminal cases)
Johnson v. Kelley, 577 S.W.3d 710 (2019) (sentence is illegal if law did not authorize it)
Rickman v. State, 597 S.W.3d 622 (2020) (consecutive vs concurrent sentencing is for trial court; jury recommendation nonbinding)