Freddie Clark v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 130

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: June 10, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Digitally signed by Susan Cite as 2021 Ark. 130 Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS and integrity of this document No. CR-20-630 Date: 2023.06.20 15:29:12 -05'00' Opinion Delivered June 10, 2021 FREDDIE CLARK APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60CR-07-1650]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BARRY SIMS, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Freddie Clark appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition

to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111

(Repl. 2016). Clark alleged that his sentence is illegal because the evidence was insufficient

to support his conviction for rape. Because Clark has failed to demonstrate that his sentence

is illegal on its face, we affirm.

A Pulaski County jury convicted Clark of rape and sentenced him to twenty-five

years’ imprisonment. The trial court entered the judgment and conviction order on

November 25, 2008. Clark filed his petition with the trial court on June 16, 2020. In an

order entered on August 6, 2020, the trial court denied the petition.

The circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be

overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38. Under

section 16-90-111, a finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.

Section 16-90-111(a) provides authority to a circuit court to correct an illegal

sentence at any time. Redus v. State, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469. An illegal sentence is

one that is illegal on its face. Id. A sentence is illegal on its face when it is void because it is

beyond the circuit court’s authority to impose and gives rise to a question of subject-matter

jurisdiction. Swift v. State, 2018 Ark. 74, 540 S.W.3d 288. Sentencing is entirely a matter of

statute in Arkansas. Fischer v. State, 2017 Ark. 338, 532 S.W.3d 40. The petitioner seeking

relief under section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden to demonstrate that his or her sentence

was illegal. Wesley v. State, 2019 Ark. 270, 585 S.W.3d 156. The general rule is that a

sentence imposed within the maximum term prescribed by law is not illegal on its face.

McArty v. State, 2020 Ark. 68, 594 S.W.3d 54.

As stated above, Clark challenges the evidence supporting his conviction for rape.

Clark insists that the evidence adduced at trial established that he was guilty of fourth-degree

sexual assault, a Class D felony. Clark’s claim for relief constitutes a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his rape conviction. An attack on the sufficiency of

the evidence does not implicate the facial validity of the judgment of conviction under

section 16-90-111. Green v. State, 2021 Ark. 19, 615 S.W.3d 389 (citing White v. State,

2018 Ark. 81, 540 S.W.3d 291).

Rape is a Class Y felony. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(c) (Repl. 2006). A Class Y

felony carries a sentencing range of not less than ten years and not more than forty years, or

life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401 (Repl. 2006). Clark’s sentence of twenty-five years’

2 imprisonment falls within the statutory range and is therefore legal on its face. Clark’s

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence should have been raised at trial or in a direct

appeal. See Ortega v. State, 2017 Ark. 365, 533 S.W.3d 68 (stating that a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence is a direct attack on the judgment and is not cognizable in

postconviction proceedings). Therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err when it rejected

Clark’s claim for relief pursuant to section 16-90-111.

Affirmed.

Freddie Clark, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.