Wesley v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 194

In 1993 Eugene Wesley was convicted in Nevada County of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft and received sentences of life, 20 years (to run consecutively), and 10 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Wesley previously filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition (denied) and an improperly filed 2013 petition in Lee County under Ark. Code § 16-90-111 challenging his Nevada County judgment; Lee County lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.
On March 29, 2016, Wesley filed a § 16-90-111 petition in Nevada County alleging (1) sentencing above mandatory guidelines for aggravated robbery and (2) double‑jeopardy from convictions based on the same conduct.
The Nevada County Circuit Court dismissed the petition with prejudice for failure to effect service and for naming Wendy Kelley (ADC Director) rather than the State as respondent; the court also held the claims meritless or not cognizable under § 16-90-111 and that a Rule 37.1 characterization would be successive.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded the petition was filed against an improper party and not served on the State; the Nevada County court therefore lacked authority to reach merits and dismissal as to Kelley was proper.
The Court instructed Wesley he may refile in Nevada County against the State under the criminal docket number and must perfect any adverse ruling on appeal in compliance with appellate rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper respondent for § 16-90-111 petition	Wesley named Wendy Kelley (ADC Director) as respondent	Petition should be filed against the State and the State must be served	Dismissal was proper as Kelley was an improper party; refile against the State under the criminal docket
Service and jurisdiction	Wesley’s petition was filed in Nevada County (correct venue)	Wesley failed to serve the State; lack of service deprived court of authority to proceed	Petition dismissed for failure of service; court could not make a merits determination
Merits: sentencing above mandatory guideline	Wesley contends sentence exceeded mandatory sentencing guideline for aggravated robbery	Court found sentences were within statutory range	Court did not reach merits because of procedural defects; noted sentences were within statutory range
Merits: double jeopardy claim	Wesley argued convictions arose from same conduct violating double jeopardy	Court held double‑jeopardy claim not cognizable under § 16-90-111; could be raised by proper proceeding	Claim not entertained on this filing; procedural posture precluded merits consideration

Wesley v. State, 318 Ark. 83, 883 S.W.2d 478 (1994) (affirming convictions and sentences)
Carroll v. Baker, 2011 Ark. 98 (per curiam) (procedural requirements for postconviction filings and appeals)
Wesley v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 260 (per curiam) (a § 16-90-111 petition must be filed in the trial court that entered the challenged judgment)