Stewart v. State
546 S.W.3d 472
Ark.2018Background
- Appellant Sammy Earl Stewart filed a 2017 petition asking the circuit court to reconsider/modify his 1997 criminal sentence; the trial court denied relief.
- Stewart was incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, and his sentence had been put into execution long before the 2017 petition.
- Stewart sought a hearing to present "new and mitigating circumstances," asserting the trial court could consider relief under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111.
- The trial court concluded it lacked authority to modify the sentence because more than sixty days had passed after the appellate-mandate affirming his conviction and sentence.
- Stewart argued on appeal there is no time limitation under § 16-90-111 and that he would have raised ineffective-assistance claims as "mitigating circumstances." The petition, however, did not assert an illegal sentence.
- The trial court denied relief as untimely and outside its jurisdiction; the Supreme Court affirmed, finding no basis for relief under § 16-90-111 or the criminal-rules timetable for postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to modify Stewart's sentence after it was executed | Stewart: § 16-90-111 allows the court to consider modification; no time limit | State: Once sentence is executed, circuit court loses jurisdiction absent narrow statutory/writ exceptions | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction; sentence executed—trial court correctly denied relief |
| Whether Stewart's petition alleged an "illegal" sentence under § 16-90-111 | Stewart: Petition sought consideration of mitigating circumstances and would have included ineffective-assistance claims if heard | State: Petition did not allege sentence was illegal on its face (exceeding statutory maximum) | Held: Petition did not allege an illegal sentence, so § 16-90-111 did not apply |
| Whether procedural-timing rules (Rule 37.2(c)) preclude relief | Stewart: No time limitation under § 16-90-111; should be considered despite delay | State: Claims that sentence was imposed in an illegal manner are subject to Rule 37.2(c)'s time limits; absent timely Rule 37 relief, § 16-90-111 provides no remedy | Held: Because Stewart raised no illegal-sentence claim within the required period, relief unavailable |
| Whether Stewart preserved ineffective-assistance claims for appeal | Stewart: Would have presented ineffective-assistance claims as mitigating circumstances at a hearing | State: Issues must be raised and ruled on in circuit court to be preserved; Stewart did not raise ineffective-assistance in his petition | Held: Ineffective-assistance claims were not presented below and were not preserved; cannot be considered now |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney v. State, 535 S.W.3d 627 (Ark. 2018) (once a judgment-and-commitment order is entered and sentence executed, jurisdiction generally transfers from the court to the executive)
- Green v. State, 533 S.W.3d 81 (Ark. 2017) (circuit court loses jurisdiction to modify a sentence once executed absent statutory exception)
- Stover v. State, 511 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2017) (issues not raised and ruled on in circuit court are not preserved for appeal)
- Stewart v. State, 961 S.W.2d 750 (Ark. 1998) (affirmation of appellant's conviction and sentence; relevant to mandate timing)