White v. State
460 S.W.3d 279
Ark.2015Background
- In 2014 Anthony White (pro se) filed a habeas petition challenging his 2006 convictions: possession of cocaine, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and possession of a firearm by a felon, with aggregate consecutive sentences totaling 1,320 months.
- White argued his convictions violated double-jeopardy principles because the jury acquitted him of possession with intent to deliver (the greater offense) but convicted him of the lesser-included simple-possession and of simultaneous-possession based on the same drugs.
- He claimed (1) the simultaneous-possession conviction relied on an underlying possession-with-intent offense of which he was acquitted and (2) the simultaneous-possession offense duplicated the elements of simple possession.
- The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition as not cognizable under habeas rules. White appealed.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the double-jeopardy claims challenged the face validity of the commitment/order and whether the simultaneous-possession statute (as of the 2005 offense date) required a particular felony class as the predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction for simultaneous possession and simple possession violates double jeopardy when based on same conduct | White: Jury acquitted on possession-with-intent but convicted on simple possession and simultaneous-possession — duplication/illegal sentencing | State: Statute applied to any violation of the drug-possession section regardless of class; legislature intended separate offenses and additional penalty | Court: No double-jeopardy violation; convictions may stand |
| Whether simultaneous-possession required predicate to be a Class Y felony | White: Underlying felony must be Class Y to support simultaneous-possession | State: 2005 version of §5-74-106 required only a felony violation of §5-64-401, without class restriction | Court: Statute (2005) had no Class Y restriction; White’s argument fails |
| Whether the double-jeopardy claim was cognizable on habeas (i.e., facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction) | White: Alleged illegal sentence on face of commitment (double-jeopardy) | State: Claim did not establish facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect sufficient for habeas relief | Court: Claims did not show illegal sentence on the face of the commitment sufficient to grant habeas relief; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the simultaneous-possession statute and drug-possession statute are distinct offenses when same conduct violates both | White: Offenses overlap; conviction on both is impermissible | State: Legislature intended separate offenses and extra penalty for simultaneous possession | Court: Legislature intended separate offenses; no double jeopardy for convictions on both statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowbottom v. State, 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000) (holds legislature intended simultaneous-possession and drug-possession to be separate offenses; no double jeopardy)
- Cody v. State, 929 S.W.2d 159 (1996) (governing statute is the one in effect at the time of the offense)