Pennington v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 441

Frederick Pennington Jr. (pro se) filed a petition for rehearing/reconsideration after this Court's September 4, 2014 decision dismissing his appeal and denying habeas relief.
Pennington had entered negotiated guilty pleas in Pulaski County to first-degree murder and four counts of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count.
Sentencing orders stated parole eligibility after serving one-third of the life sentences.
At the time of the offenses, first-degree murder and aggravated robbery were Class A felonies punishable by up to life, and Arkansas law (then in effect) barred parole for life sentences except if commuted by executive clemency.
The Court treated the pro se rehearing as a petition for reconsideration in light of its decision in Hale v. Hobbs and reviewed the sentences sua sponte for facial invalidity.
The Court concluded the Pulaski County Circuit Court exceeded its statutory authority by imposing life sentences with parole eligibility, reversed the denial of habeas corpus, issued the writ, and remanded for transfer to Pulaski County for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the life sentences with parole eligibility are lawful under statutes in effect when crimes were committed	Pennington argued sentencing was improper (raised via petition for reconsideration)	State contended prior sentence stands (implicit)	Sentences are facially invalid because statute then barred parole for life sentences; sentencing court exceeded authority
Whether a void/illegal sentence may be reviewed sua sponte despite not being raised	Pennington sought relief; Court relied on jurisdictional principle	State did not waive contention; but issue is jurisdictional and nonwaivable	Court may review void/illegal sentences sua sponte and do so here
Appropriate remedy for an unauthorized sentence	Pennington sought issuance of writ of habeas corpus	State opposed release under existing orders	Court reversed denial of habeas, issued writ, and remanded for resentencing in Pulaski County
Effect of Hale v. Hobbs on Pennington’s case	Pennington relied on Hale to support reconsideration	State’s position not successful post-Hale	Hale compelled reconsideration; sentences like Pennington’s are unauthorized

Taylor v. State, 354 Ark. 450, 125 S.W.3d 174 (2003) (void or illegal sentence akin to subject-matter jurisdiction and not waivable)
Flowers v. State, 347 Ark. 760, 68 S.W.3d 289 (2002) (court may review void or illegal sentences regardless of waiver)
Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d 235 (2003) (appellate review permitted for sentences unauthorized by statute)