Van Jenkins v. State
2017 Ark. 288
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Appellant Dennis Van Jenkins filed a pro se petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 claiming his sentences were illegally imposed because he was sentenced for multiple offenses arising from one course of conduct.
- Jenkins was convicted (2001) of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and theft; sentenced as a habitual offender to life plus 360 months; this Court previously affirmed.
- The trial court treated the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 petition and denied it for lack of jurisdiction.
- Jenkins relied on Rowe v. State to argue that sentencing on both a charged felony and an underlying felony violated the prohibition on multiple punishments (double jeopardy).
- The Supreme Court analyzed whether the claimed error rendered the sentence illegal on its face (cognizable under § 16-90-111) and whether Rowe remained good law given statutory changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is "illegal on its face" under § 16-90-111 | Jenkins: sentences illegal because they imposed multiple punishments for the same conduct (double jeopardy) | State: Jenkins raised a double-jeopardy claim cognizable under Rule 37.1 and did not show a facially illegal sentence | Court: Not facially illegal; claim is a Rule 37.1 double-jeopardy claim subject to Rule 37.2 time limits |
| Whether the petition was timely / jurisdictional | Jenkins: sought relief under § 16-90-111 (which has no time limit) | State: petition was in substance a Rule 37.1 postconviction claim and untimely; trial court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Trial court correctly treated petition as untimely Rule 37.1 and denied it |
| Whether sentencing for murder and underlying felonies violates double jeopardy (Rowe) | Jenkins: relied on Rowe to argue underlying felonies are lesser-included and cannot be separately punished | State: statutory amendments authorize separate convictions and cumulative punishments for murder and underlying felonies | Court: Rowe’s rule was superseded by statute; multiple sentences here did not violate double jeopardy |
| Whether appeal and motion for counsel/stay should proceed | Jenkins: requested appointment of counsel and stay of briefing | State: appeal appears without merit | Court: Appeal is wholly without merit; appeal dismissed and motion rendered moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. State, 275 Ark. 37, 627 S.W.2d 16 (Rule barring multiple sentences for underlying felony; court held statute later authorized separate punishments)
- Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304, 5 S.W.3d 41 (§ 16-90-111 authorizes correction of illegal sentences at any time)
- Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533, 768 S.W.2d 541 (sentence within statutory maximum is not facially illegal)
- Montague v. State, 341 Ark. 144, 14 S.W.3d 867 (double-jeopardy claims must be raised at trial and are cognizable in Rule 37.1 petitions)
- Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33, 13 S.W.3d 904 (double-jeopardy claims are fundamental and may be raised in Rule 37.1 petitions)
- Clark v. State, 373 Ark. 161, 282 S.W.3d 801 (statutory change authorized separate convictions/sentences for murder and underlying felonies)
- Jenkins v. State, 350 Ark. 219, 85 S.W.3d 878 (appeal affirming convictions and sentences)