Waller v. Kelley
2016 Ark. 252
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 1996 Romario V. Waller pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to first-degree murder, arson, and first-degree battery and was sentenced to 40 years; his presumptive sentence under the guidelines was 36 years.
- The Arkansas Department of Correction calculated his earliest parole-transfer date based on the imposed 40-year sentence, making parole eligibility August 21, 2023.
- In October 2014 Waller filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus arguing parole-eligibility must be calculated from the presumptive (36-year) sentence per Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-804(c) (as in effect when the crime occurred).
- The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed the petition with prejudice, found the claim precluded by prior litigation or insufficient to state a claim, denied summary judgment, and ruled the dismissal counts as a "strike" under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
- On appeal the Director sought dismissal under the "three strikes" statute, but the Supreme Court of Arkansas declined to consider that argument because it was not raised below.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief on the merits (Department did not err) but reversed the circuit court’s determination that the petition constituted a statutory "strike."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC must calculate parole eligibility based on the presumptive sentence under § 16-90-804(c) when imposed sentence exceeds presumptive and no written reasons accompany the judgment | Waller: § 16-90-804(c) requires parole eligibility be computed using the 36-year presumptive sentence because his 40-year sentence was above the presumptive and no written departure reasons appeared | DOC: The statutory provision does not apply where the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea; parole eligibility is determined under law at time of offense and by DOC discretion | Held: § 16-90-804(c) does not apply to negotiated-plea sentences; DOC did not err in using the imposed 40-year sentence to compute parole eligibility. |
| Whether petitioner stated a claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6)-type review | Waller: Alleged DOC misapplied statutes to compute parole eligibility, asserting a cognizable statutory-interpretation claim | DOC: Petition fails to state a claim because statutory exemption (negotiated plea) prevents relief | Held: Factually and legally the petition pleaded a cognizable claim and would survive a motion to dismiss, but merits fail because of negotiated plea; thus dismissal on merits was correct but not a proper basis for a "strike." |
| Whether the circuit court properly designated the dismissal as a "strike" under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607 | Waller: N/A (argues petition was meritorious) | DOC: Circuit court found petition failed to state a claim and thus counts as a strike | Held: Circuit court erred; because the petition would have survived a 12(b)(6) dismissal, it should not be counted as a statutory "strike." |
| Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the appeal under § 16-68-607 sua sponte because of prior strikes | DOC: Requested dismissal under the three-strikes rule | Waller: N/A on appeal; issue not argued below | Held: Court declined to consider or dismiss on that basis because the Director did not raise the issue below; appellate courts do not entertain arguments not presented to the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410 (parole eligibility governed by law at time of the offense)
- Morris v. State, 333 Ark. 466 (parole decisions lie within DOC authority)
- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette v. Zimmerman, 341 Ark. 771 (mandamus purpose and standards)
- Wiggins v. State, 299 Ark. 180 (declaratory-judgment characterization of such petitions)
- Perry v. Baptist Health, 358 Ark. 238 (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) review in Arkansas)
- Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Ross-Lawhon, 290 Ark. 578 (requirements for declaratory relief)