Ussery v. State
2014 Ark. 186
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2012, judgment noted Ussery pled guilty in four Pulaski County cases and received a 300-month aggregate sentence with 180 months suspended.
- Over eight months after judgment, Ussery filed a pro se petition to correct or reduce sentence under §16-90-111 alleging ineffective assistance and constitutional violations.
- The trial court denied the petition, and Ussery appealed the denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the petition was not timely filed in the trial court.
- The court held Rule 37.2 deadlines are jurisdictional and apply to postconviction petitions filed after a guilty plea.
- The petition was untimely, and even under §16-90-111 there was no relief because the claims should have been brought under Rule 37.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal timely and jurisdictionally proper? | Ussery argues timely postconviction relief under Rule 37.1. | State contends petition untimely; lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to untimely filing. |
| Does Rule 37.2 govern cognizable Rule 37.1 claims despite §16-90-111? | Rule 37.1 claims are cognizable under postconviction rules. | §16-90-111 precludes reliance on Rule 37.1 unless timely. | Rule 37.2 governs; §16-90-111 is superseded for cognizable Rule 37.1 claims. |
| Can an illegal-sentence claim under §16-90-111 be raised when within statutory range and not jurisdictional? | Claims of illegal sentence exist under §16-90-111. | Arguments concern constitutional grounds or remedy under Rule 37.1. | No relief; such claims should be raised under Rule 37.1 if cognizable; petition not proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanley v. State, 2013 Ark. 483 (Ark. 2013) (cognizable postconviction claims under Rule 37.1; supersedes §16-90-111)
- Purifoy v. State, 2013 Ark. 26 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 governs cognizable claims regardless of labeling)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 243 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 claims subject to time limits)
- Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (Ark. 2012) (Rule 37.2 deadlines are jurisdictional)
- Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246 (Ark. 1996) (per curiam; jurisdictional aspects of postconviction rules)
- Winnett v. State, 2012 Ark. 404 (Ark. 2012) (when trial court lacks jurisdiction, appellate court lacks jurisdiction)
- Skinner v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 383 (Ark. 2011) (jurisdictional timeliness of illegal-sentence-type challenges)
- Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (Ark. 2012) (contrasts jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional sentence challenges)