Charles Isaac Wilson, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 179

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: November 13, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 179 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-25-217

Opinion Delivered: November 13, 2025 CHARLES ISAAC WILSON, JR. APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FCR-09-464A]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

The circuit court denied Charles Isaac Wilson, Jr.’s petition to correct an illegal

sentence for lack of jurisdiction. Wilson appeals, and the State concedes that the circuit

court had jurisdiction to consider the petition. We affirm because his petition lacks merit,

and thus, the court did not clearly err by denying it.

I. Background

In 2010, Wilson was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance and was

sentenced as a habitual offender to serve a term of 480 months’ imprisonment succeeded by

240 months’ suspended imposition of sentence. Wilson petitioned to correct an illegal

sentence under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016). He alleged that

his sentence is illegal because (1) the prosecutor made inflammatory remarks during closing

argument; (2) it violated due process and equal protection; and (3) Arkansas law prohibits an imposition of a suspended sentence for habitual offenders.1 The circuit court denied his

petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction.

II. Analysis

On review we will not overturn a circuit court’s denial of a petition to correct an

illegal sentence unless it is clearly erroneous.2 A finding is clearly erroneous when the

appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm

conviction that there has been a mistake.3 A circuit court can correct an illegal sentence at

any time,4 which is why the State correctly concedes the circuit court erred in denying relief

for lack of jurisdiction. Yet it argues this court should affirm the denial for different reasons.

We agree because a review of the record demonstrates Wilson’s petition cannot succeed.

A court considers whether an illegal sentence is illegal on its face.5 The general rule

is that a sentence imposed within the maximum term prescribed by law is not illegal on its

face.6 On appeal, Wilson contends that the circuit court failed to explain its reasoning and

that it did not give his petition a fulsome review as required by the constitutions of the

United States and Arkansas and the Arkansas Code of Judicial Conduct. But he recognizes

1 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-301(a)(2) (Repl. 2006). 2 Harmon v. State, 2023 Ark. 120, at 2, 673 S.W.3d 797, 799. 3 Id. 4 See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111(a); Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, at 2, 682 S.W.3d 662, 664. 5 Id. 6 Id.

2 this court’s de novo review of the record and states he has “nothing further to add at this

time.” He asks us to reverse, and remand for further proceedings.

Wilson is not entitled to relief on his petition. Contrary to Wilson’s arguments, the

circuit court did provide a reason for denying his petition, albeit a wrong one. There is no

further requirement that the court afford Wilson a hearing because, as we explained, a

sentence is illegal based on its face. And Wilson’s sentence was within the statutory range

and facially valid.7

As to his argument that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-301(a)(2) prohibits

imposition of a suspended sentence because he is a habitual offender, and that suspended

sentences are prohibited by statute, he is mistaken. A habitual offender may receive a

suspended sentence along with a sentence to a term of imprisonment within certain

parameters.8 When a habitual offender is sentenced first to a term of imprisonment beyond

the minimum term, then a successive suspended sentence is not prohibited by section 5-4-

301(a)(2) as long as the total combined sentence does not exceed the maximum term.9

Wilson was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance, a Class Y felony, and was

sentenced as a habitual offender in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-

501(a)(1)(B)(ii) (Repl. 2006) to 480 months’ imprisonment followed by a suspended

7 Any claims that go beyond this and to trial error are not considered. Woodruff, 2024 Ark. 13, 682 S.W.3d 662. 8 See Carter v. State, 2023 Ark. 37, 660 S.W.3d 793; see also Muhammad v. State, 2021 Ark. 129, 624 S.W.3d 300. 9 See Todd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 204, 489 S.W.3d 207.

3 sentence of 240 months. The minimum sentence for a Class Y felony for a habitual offender

who has committed more than one previous felony was ten years and the maximum was

sixty years.10 Wilson’s sentence for imprisonment was beyond the minimum and combined

sentence does not exceed the maximum for the offense. It is therefore facially legal.

Although the circuit court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, this court may affirm

a circuit court when it has reached the right decision, albeit for the wrong reason, when we

have an adequately developed record.11 The circuit court did not clearly err when it denied

Wilson’s petition, and we affirm.

Charles Isaac Wilson, pro se appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

10 See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(a)(1)(C) &(a)(2)(Repl. 2006). 11 McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385.