Stanley v. State, 2013 Ark. 483

Oscar W. Stanley pleaded guilty in Sebastian County (Fort Smith) to robbery and overdraft in 2012 and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 300 months for robbery and a consecutive 60-month SIS for overdraft; sentence to run consecutive to a parole violation.
Additional sentencing terms included withdrawal of pending revocation petitions in several earlier Sebastian County cases; prior revocations and convictions are part of the record and appeals history.
On May 28, 2013, Stanley filed a pro se petition to "correct an illegal sentence" under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111, alleging retroactive application of law, parole-eligibility errors, consecutive-run disputes with prior sentences, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise or object regarding the sentencing scheme.
The circuit court denied the petition as untimely; Stanley appealed that denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court and moved there for a transcript and for an extension to file a brief.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether Stanley could prevail on appeal and whether his claims were cognizable under § 16-90-111 or Rule 37.1, and whether the petition met the applicable time limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stanley's claim properly challenges an "illegal sentence" under § 16-90-111	Sentence was illegal due to retroactive application of law and parole-eligibility errors	Petition improperly labeled; these are constitutional or trial-error claims not within § 16-90-111	Court: Claims are not jurisdictional illegal-sentence claims and § 16-90-111 does not afford relief for these grounds
Whether ineffective-assistance claims are cognizable under § 16-90-111	Counsel failed to object/advice concerning sentencing scheme, so sentence is voidable	IAC claims must be brought under Rule 37.1, not § 16-90-111	Court: IAC claims are not cognizable under § 16-90-111 and should have been raised in a timely Rule 37.1 petition
Whether Stanley’s petition was timely under Rule 37.2(c) when he pleaded guilty	Petition filed ~10 months after judgment; argued relief still available	Rule 37.2(c) requires filing within 90 days after judgment for guilty pleas; time limit is jurisdictional	Court: Petition untimely under Rule 37.2(c); circuit court lacked jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether petition was timely under § 16-90-111 statutory deadlines	Petitioners can seek correction within statute's short windows for sentence reduction	§ 16-90-111 requires reduction order within 90 days after sentence or within 60 days after receipt of mandate; Stanley’s filing missed those windows	Court: Even under § 16-90-111 petition was untimely; dismissal affirmed

Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. 118 (per curiam) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief will not proceed where appellant could not prevail)
Holliday v. State, 2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam) (same principle regarding appeals from postconviction denials)
Skinner v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 383 (per curiam) (illegal-sentence jurisdictional issues may be addressed at any time)
Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (per curiam) (distinguishing true illegal-sentence claims from claims cognizable under Rule 37)
Hickman v. State, 2012 Ark. 359 (per curiam) (ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37 proceedings)
Purifoy v. State, 2013 Ark. 26 (per curiam) (Rule 37 governs petitions regardless of the label a petitioner uses)
Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 243 (per curiam) (§ 16-90-111 is superseded to the extent claims are cognizable under Rule 37)
Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (per curiam) (Rule 37.2 time limits are jurisdictional)
Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (per curiam) (same rule on jurisdictional effect of Rule 37 deadlines)
Winnett v. State, 2012 Ark. 404 (per curiam) (where circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief)
Stanley v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 293 (affirming prior revocation order referenced in the record)