Reyes v. State
2015 Ark. App. 55
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jamie Reyes pleaded guilty to second-degree sexual assault and two counts of failure to appear; on January 29, 2013 the court imposed two concurrent six-year prison terms for the failures to appear and a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the sexual-assault conviction, with a condition that Reyes enroll in and complete the Reduction of Sexual Victimization Program (RSVP).
- ADC intake staff placed Reyes on the RSVP waiting list in February 2013; the waiting list reportedly had about 1,500 inmates and was ranked by transfer-eligibility (TE) dates.
- Reyes repeatedly sought enrollment (letters in June and July 2013); ADC replied that he was on the waiting list and must wait his turn.
- Reyes was released early under the Emergency Powers Act on November 26, 2013, before beginning RSVP; the State later filed a petition to revoke his SIS for failure to enroll/complete RSVP.
- Trial court revoked the SIS, concluding completion of RSVP required incarceration and sentencing Reyes to eight years in ADC plus a twelve-year SIS (which again required completing RSVP).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the revocation, holding Reyes had made reasonable efforts but was prevented by ADC from completing RSVP; the court also held the original SIS was illegal to the extent it ran consecutively to the prison terms and modified it to run concurrently.
Issues
| Issue | Reyes' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was justified where Reyes failed to complete RSVP | Reyes argued he did all he could while incarcerated to enroll and was prevented by ADC/waitlist and by early release | State argued Reyes could have remained in ADC to complete RSVP and voluntarily chose release instead of completing program | Reversed: violation not "inexcusable"; revocation was against the preponderance of evidence |
| Whether the sentencing order making the SIS consecutive to prison terms was lawful | Reyes argued the SIS should not run consecutively | State defended original sentencing structure | Modified sentence: SIS must run concurrently with the prison terms; SIS effective from Jan 29, 2013 |
Key Cases Cited
- Seamster v. State, 308 S.W.3d 567 (Ark. 2009) (distinguishing refusal-to-comply facts where inmate never sought program entry)
- Owens v. State, 372 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. App. 2009) (revocation standard: appellate review will not reverse unless clearly against preponderance)
- Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (statutory interpretation requiring suspended sentences with terms of imprisonment for different crimes to run concurrently)
- Webb v. State, 281 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. 2009) (illegal-sentence issue may be raised on appeal)
- Harness v. State, 101 S.W.3d 235 (Ark. 2003) (appellate correction of illegal sentence without remand)