Livingston v. State
2014 Ark. 364
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2009 Livingston entered a negotiated nolo contendere plea to fourteen felonies with an aggregate 156-month sentence in Jefferson County.
- In 2012, Livingston filed a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. §16-90-111, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea.
- The trial court denied the petition, and Livingston appealed a postconviction denial.
- Rule 37.2 requires timely postconviction petitions after a guilty plea to be filed within 90 days of judgment; the time limits are jurisdictional.
- The court concluded the petition was filed well beyond 90 days, depriving the trial court and appellate court of jurisdiction to grant relief.
- Even if considered under §16-90-111's propriety for illegal-sentence corrections, the petition failed to demonstrate an illegal sentence and misconstrued relief as a Rule 37.1 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the petition timely under Rule 37.2? | Livingston contends relief is warranted under §16-90-111. | State argues petition untimely, depriving jurisdiction. | Petition untimely; lack of jurisdiction. |
| Can postconviction relief be pursued under Rule 37.1 rather than §16-90-111? | Claims of ineffective assistance fall under Rule 37.1. | Rule 37.1 applicability is limited by timeliness and scope. | Rule 37.1 governs properly cognizable claims; §16-90-111 claims barred by timeliness. |
| Did the petition raise an illegal-sentence claim of jurisdictional type? | Sentence legality issues were not properly addressed at trial. | No jurisdictional illegal-sentence error shown. | Not a jurisdictional illegal-sentence claim; improper vehicle for relief. |
| Were the allegations about ineffective assistance of counsel properly raised and timely? | Ineffective-assistance claims should be addressed in postconviction proceedings. | Claims were not timely raised under Rule 37.2 and are otherwise improper. | Cognizable in Rule 37.1 but untimely; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ussery v. State, 2014 Ark. 186 (Ark. 2014) (Rule 37.2 timing is jurisdictional; untimely petitions lack jurisdiction)
- Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. 118 (Ark. 2013) (constitutional challenges to a sentence within statutory range are trial issues)
- Stanley v. State, 2013 Ark. 483 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 applicability to postconviction challenges)
- Purifoy v. State, 2013 Ark. 26 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam postconviction considerations)
- Ussery v. State, 2014 Ark. 186 (Ark. 2014) (precedent on jurisdiction and Rule 37.1 interaction)
- Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2012) (jurisdictional considerations in postconviction)