Lenard v. State
2014 Ark. 478
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Ricky Lynn Lenard, Sr. pled guilty in multiple Jefferson County cases and ultimately received concurrent 60‑month imprisonments after plea and probation‑revocation proceedings; sentencing orders were amended twice to correct clerical matters and jail‑time credit.
- First amended order (July 15, 2013) removed sex‑offender language and awarded 86 days’ credit; State later showed only 46 days were proper and a second amended order reduced credit to 46 days (Sept. 10, 2013).
- Lenard filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16‑90‑111 seeking correction of an illegal sentence, raising claims about back‑dating the aggregate sentence, jail‑time credit, failure to address a parole violation, omission of plea terms in the amended order, and denial of a probable‑cause hearing.
- Trial court denied the petition with prejudice; Lenard appealed and also objected to the State’s request for an extension of briefing time.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded the record and briefs showed Lenard could not prevail, affirmed the denial of the petition, and treated the motion objecting to the State’s extension as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is illegal because trial court failed to rule on motion to dismiss probation‑violation for untimely revocation hearing | Lenard: revocation hearing not held within 60 days so charge should be dismissed | State: delay does not create a jurisdictional defect; claim not raised below as illegal‑sentence claim | Court: Claim does not show an illegal sentence or jurisdictional defect; cannot raise this issue first on appeal |
| Whether aggregate sentence should be "back dated" per plea agreement | Lenard: plea negotiations required back‑dating to a prior sentence | State: amended orders show concurrent service with parole violation; no statutory basis or record support for back‑dating | Court: Argument undeveloped and unsupported; sentencing within statutory limits and runs concurrent as reflected; claim fails |
| Whether jail‑time credit awarded was incorrect (86 days vs. 46 days) | Lenard: jail logs would verify additional credit | State: provided detailed jail chronology showing only 46 days proper | Court: Request for additional credit is a request to modify sentence imposed in an illegal manner and must be developed below; appellant failed to develop or prove entitlement to extra credit |
| Whether denial of probable‑cause hearing or other procedural omissions render sentence illegal | Lenard: alleged denial of probable‑cause hearing in one case | State: procedural claims were not presented as illegal‑sentence claims below; no facial illegality shown | Court: These are not facial illegalities; must be raised below; claims abandoned or waived on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304 (Ark. 2000) (trial court may correct illegal sentence at any time)
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494 (Ark. 1999) (authority to correct illegal sentence and scope of review)
- Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519 (Ark. 1990) (definition of a sentence illegal on its face)
- Fitts v. State, 290 Ark. 53 (Ark. 1986) (statutory maximum governs facial legality of sentence)
- Richie v. State, 357 S.W.3d 909 (Ark. 2009) (issues about manner of imposition must first be raised in trial court)
- Haskins v. State, 264 Ark. 454 (Ark. 1978) (failure to demand timely revocation hearing waives the claim; not jurisdictional)