Albert Dirickson v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Dirickson’s petition to correct an illegal sentence because none of his claims established that the sentences were facially illegal. His challenges concerned charging and proof, double jeopardy, evidentiary sufficiency, and consecutive sentencing, all of which were either not cognizable under the statute or did not implicate the judgment’s facial validity. The circuit court therefore did not clearly err in denying the petition as untimely under the applicable postconviction time limitation.