Supreme Court of Arkansas
Petree v. State
Christopher Petree v. State of Arkansas
323 Ark. 570 · 920 S.W.2d 819
Decided July 10, 1995
Good LawGood law: 1 citing case carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the circuit court’s resentencing order because the petition to vacate the sentence was filed outside the 90‑day deadline required by Rule 37, making the court without jurisdiction; the case was remanded to reinstate the original judgment.
Holdings
- Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider a petition to vacate and to resentence when the petition was filed after the 90‑day deadline required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c).. The circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the petition was not filed within the ninety‑day period, and filing deadlines in Rule 37 are jurisdictional.
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
6 opinions cite this case
Applied
Richard Marion Hamm v. State of Arkansas, 75 Ark. App. 358. the opinion cites Petree for the rule that filing deadlines are jurisdictional
Applied
Richard Marion Hamm v. State of Arkansas, 75 Ark. App. 358. the opinion cites Petree for the rule that filing deadlines are jurisdictional
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
The appellant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, fourth offense, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be followed by five years of probation. His driver’s license was revoked for three years. The judgment and commitment order was filed on August 27, 1993. On May 16, 1994, the appellant filed a petition to vacate sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1993) and Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. He argued that the term of two years of incarceration followed by five years of probation exceeded the statutory maximum allowed by law. The court granted the petition, and on June 6, 1994, the appellant appeared before the Independence County Circuit Court for resentencing. The new sentence was a term of sixty months to be served at the Arkansas Department of Correction. The appellant brings this appeal.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in the following ways: (1) the trial court failed to set forth particular reasons for increasing the term of imprisonment; (2) it failed to allow him the opportunity to withdraw a previous plea of guilty; (3) it solicited and obtained information regarding pending charges against him, yet failed to consider favorable factors to him; and (4) the two-year imprisonment portion of the original sentence was valid, had already been put into execution, and therefore was not subject to modification. The Independence County Circuit Court’s judgment and commitment order of June 6, 1994, is reversed because the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence the appellant.
The original judgment and commitment order was illegal, as the appellant originally maintained, because the two-year imprisonment followed by a five-year term of probation exceeds the maximum penalty for the offense committed as defined under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-65-111 (b)(3) (Repl. 1993) and because the imposition of probation following a term of imprisonment is prohibited by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-104 (Repl. 1993). However, as stated before, the trial court had no jurisdiction to correct the illegal sentence.
The appellant failed to file his May 16, 1994, petition to vacate sentence in a timely manner. Rule 37 has filing deadlines that govern not only Rule 37 petitions but also petitions to correct illegal sentences filed pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (a). Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) states, in pertinent part:
... If conviction was obtained on a plea of guilty, . . . the petition claiming relief under this rule must be filed in the appropriate circuit court within ninety (90) days of the date of the entry of judgment.
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(b) states, in pertinent part:
. . . All grounds for post-conviction relief from a sentence imposed by circuit court, including claims that a sentence is illegally imposed, must be raised in a petition under this rule.
These filing deadlines are jurisdictional in nature. If they are not met, a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Rule 37 petition at issue or the petition to correct illegal sentence at issue on its merits. Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180, 848 S.W.2d 391 (1993).
The appellant should have filed his petition within ninety days of August 27, 1993, the date that the original judgment and commitment order was entered against him. Because the petition was not filed in a timely manner, the circuit court was required to dismiss the petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Although the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (a) permit a circuit court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, this court has held that this provision is invalid to the extent that it conflicts with Rule 37.2(b). Smith v. State, 321 Ark. 195, 900 S.W.2d 939 (1995); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994). The case is remanded to the Independence County Circuit Court to reinstate the original judgment and commitment order.
Reversed and remanded.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- State of New Mexico, Plaintiff v. Allen White, Defendant71 N.M. 342 (1962)
- The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Kimberly Smith, Respondent1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 135 (1999)
- Pierce Neace, Appellant v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellee1998 Ky. LEXIS 119 (1998)
- People v. Miles454 Mich. 90 (1997)
- The State of Washington, Petitioner v. Arliss Yvonne Shove, Respondent113 Wash. 2d 83 (1989)