Walker v. State, 459 S.W.3d 300

In 2014 Anthony Walker pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in Crittenden County and was sentenced as a habitual offender: 300 months imprisonment on count one and a 300‑month suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) on count two, ordered to run consecutively.
Walker, while incarcerated in Lee County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court challenging the legality of the consecutive sentence.
The Lee County circuit court denied habeas relief; Walker appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Walker’s principal claim: a suspended sentence imposed with a term of imprisonment for a different crime must run concurrently under the statutory scheme (former Ark. Code Ann. § 5‑4‑307(b)).
The State argued the statute permits consecutive ordering when the imprisonment and SIS are imposed in the same judgment rather than when imprisonment arises during an existing period of suspension.
The court reviewed prior Arkansas precedent interpreting § 5‑4‑307 and whether the consecutive order produced an illegal sentence on its face.

Issue	Walker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Legality of ordering an SIS consecutive to a term of imprisonment for a different offense	Walker: statute requires suspended sentences run concurrently with any state term of imprisonment, so SIS cannot be made consecutive to a different‑offense prison term	State: statute only mandates concurrency when the imprisonment is for an offense that arose during the period of suspension; here both dispositions were in one judgment	The court held the trial court lacked authority to order the SIS consecutive to the prison term; the consecutive order produced an illegal sentence and relief was warranted.
Other collateral claims (habitual‑offender procedure, admissibility of priors, jurisdiction, sentencing at revocation hearing)	Walker raised multiple additional objections to his convictions/sentence	State: objections were conclusory and did not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction	The court rejected these claims as conclusory and not grounds for habeas relief.

Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575 (discusses habeas‑corpus scope and requirements)
Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219 (burden on petitioner to establish lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity)
Hendrix v. State, 291 Ark. 134 (statute prevents stacking suspension or probation periods)
Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (analysis of § 5‑4‑307 and limits on consecutive suspended sentences)
Gray v. State, 443 S.W.3d 545 (Ark. 2014) (§ 5‑4‑307(b) does not permit consecutive SIS and prison terms for different offenses)