Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 294 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-92
IRIS BROWN Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 43CR-23-119]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE, APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Appellant Iris Brown appeals from the denial of her pro se petitions to correct an
illegal sentence filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016).
On appeal, Brown argues that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because she was
forced to sign a plea agreement and because her counsel did not prevent her probation
revocation on a sentence that had already expired. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of
Brown’s petitions.
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
On February 22, 2023, Brown was charged in the Lonoke County Circuit Court with
committing the offense of second-degree domestic battering, a Class C felony, on October
26, 2022, and committing the offense of failure to appear, a Class C felony, on January 23, 2023. On February 27, 2023, she pleaded guilty to both offenses. Brown was sentenced to
thirty-six months’ probation. On April 10, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Brown’s
probation for failure to report on four occasions and failure to make payments in accordance
with the conditions of her probation. On April 9, Brown pleaded guilty to violating the terms
of her probation. She was sentenced to sixty months’ probation. As part of her plea, Brown
signed an acknowledgment of her understanding that if she violated her listed probation
conditions during her period of probation, the circuit court could impose a sentence of up
to twenty years’ imprisonment.
On June 14, 2024, the State filed a second petition to revoke Brown’s probation
alleging that she failed to report on two dates, that she failed to maintain a valid residence,
and that her whereabouts were unknown at the time the petition was filed. On August 6,
2024, Brown once again pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation. She was
sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-six months’ imprisonment on each of the original
offenses of second-degree domestic battering and failure to appear.
On October 30, 2024, Brown filed a petition to correct illegal sentence pursuant to
section 16-90-111, claiming that her revocation was illegal because it was based on a sentence
that had already been served and a parole date that had already expired. Brown claimed that
her original charges were from 2005 and 2008 and that she had completed her prison
sentences and time on parole related to those convictions when her parole was revoked in
2 August 2024.1 The circuit court denied Brown’s petition on October 31, 2024, finding that
she had pleaded guilty to two Class C felonies in February 2023, both of which carried
possible sentences of three-to-ten years’ imprisonment. The circuit court further found that
when Brown pleaded guilty to violating her probation in August 2024, she could have
received ten years’ imprisonment on each of her original offenses and that her three-year
sentence on the revocation was a legal sentence. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal on
November 14, 2024.
The record on appeal also contains a second illegal-sentence petition that Brown filed
on November 20, 2024. Brown made the same argument there as in her previous petition
and added an assertion that her three-year sentence constituted a double-jeopardy violation.
She also attached her August 6, 2024 revocation plea statement and circled the date
“8/12/2005” that appeared in the “Original Offense” section of the plea statement. The
circuit court denied that petition on December 5, 2024, reiterating that Brown’s three-year
sentence on her August 6, 2024 revocation was legal. The circuit court also noted, “On the
Plea Statement to Revocation the Petitioner sent with her motion, she has 8/12/2005
circled[,] which is part of the statute. The statute indicates the original offense date was after
the year 2005.” Brown filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2024, and this appeal
followed.
1 Brown mistakenly asserted in her petition that her parole was revoked August 2024. As stated above, she pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation, not parole, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-six months’ imprisonment pursuant to her probation revocation on August 6, 2024.
3 II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
The circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be
overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, at 2,
682 S.W.3d 662, 664. 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, at 4, 566 S.W.3d 469, 471. 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. Id. Sentencing is entirely a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id. Sentencing shall
not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of
the crime. Hale v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 405, at 4, 443 S.W.3d 533, 535. The petitioner seeking
relief under section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of demonstrating that his or her sentence
was illegal. Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, at 3, 566 S.W.3d at 471. 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, at 7, 594 S.W.3d 54, 58. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear
and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, and typically, trial error does
not implicate the jurisdiction of the circuit court or, as a consequence, implicate the facial
validity of the judgment. Id., 594 S.W.3d at 59.
III. Discussion
4 For reversal, Brown argues that she was denied her right to effective assistance of
counsel because she was forced to sign a plea agreement and because her counsel did not
prevent her probation revocation on a sentence that had already expired. As an initial matter,
Brown did not assert these ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in her petitions below, and
the circuit court did not rule on them. Our supreme court has held that in an appeal from
the denial of an illegal-sentence petition, it is incumbent upon an appellant to obtain a ruling
on specific claims for the arguments to have been preserved for appeal. Heringer v. State, 2009
Ark. 376, at 1 (per curiam). This court does not address new arguments raised for the first
time on appeal. Dirickson v. State, 2021 Ark. 36, at 3, 617 S.W.3d 712, 715. Moreover, even
if she had preserved her arguments for appeal, allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
are not sufficient to demonstrate that a judgment is facially illegal. Leach v. State, 2017 Ark.
176, at 4, 518 S.W.3d 670, 673. Thus, such claims are not cognizable as a ground for relief
under section 16-90-111. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 294 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-92
IRIS BROWN Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 43CR-23-119]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BARBARA ELMORE, APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Appellant Iris Brown appeals from the denial of her pro se petitions to correct an
illegal sentence filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016).
On appeal, Brown argues that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because she was
forced to sign a plea agreement and because her counsel did not prevent her probation
revocation on a sentence that had already expired. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of
Brown’s petitions.
I. Background Facts and Procedural History
On February 22, 2023, Brown was charged in the Lonoke County Circuit Court with
committing the offense of second-degree domestic battering, a Class C felony, on October
26, 2022, and committing the offense of failure to appear, a Class C felony, on January 23, 2023. On February 27, 2023, she pleaded guilty to both offenses. Brown was sentenced to
thirty-six months’ probation. On April 10, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Brown’s
probation for failure to report on four occasions and failure to make payments in accordance
with the conditions of her probation. On April 9, Brown pleaded guilty to violating the terms
of her probation. She was sentenced to sixty months’ probation. As part of her plea, Brown
signed an acknowledgment of her understanding that if she violated her listed probation
conditions during her period of probation, the circuit court could impose a sentence of up
to twenty years’ imprisonment.
On June 14, 2024, the State filed a second petition to revoke Brown’s probation
alleging that she failed to report on two dates, that she failed to maintain a valid residence,
and that her whereabouts were unknown at the time the petition was filed. On August 6,
2024, Brown once again pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation. She was
sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-six months’ imprisonment on each of the original
offenses of second-degree domestic battering and failure to appear.
On October 30, 2024, Brown filed a petition to correct illegal sentence pursuant to
section 16-90-111, claiming that her revocation was illegal because it was based on a sentence
that had already been served and a parole date that had already expired. Brown claimed that
her original charges were from 2005 and 2008 and that she had completed her prison
sentences and time on parole related to those convictions when her parole was revoked in
2 August 2024.1 The circuit court denied Brown’s petition on October 31, 2024, finding that
she had pleaded guilty to two Class C felonies in February 2023, both of which carried
possible sentences of three-to-ten years’ imprisonment. The circuit court further found that
when Brown pleaded guilty to violating her probation in August 2024, she could have
received ten years’ imprisonment on each of her original offenses and that her three-year
sentence on the revocation was a legal sentence. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal on
November 14, 2024.
The record on appeal also contains a second illegal-sentence petition that Brown filed
on November 20, 2024. Brown made the same argument there as in her previous petition
and added an assertion that her three-year sentence constituted a double-jeopardy violation.
She also attached her August 6, 2024 revocation plea statement and circled the date
“8/12/2005” that appeared in the “Original Offense” section of the plea statement. The
circuit court denied that petition on December 5, 2024, reiterating that Brown’s three-year
sentence on her August 6, 2024 revocation was legal. The circuit court also noted, “On the
Plea Statement to Revocation the Petitioner sent with her motion, she has 8/12/2005
circled[,] which is part of the statute. The statute indicates the original offense date was after
the year 2005.” Brown filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2024, and this appeal
followed.
1 Brown mistakenly asserted in her petition that her parole was revoked August 2024. As stated above, she pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation, not parole, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-six months’ imprisonment pursuant to her probation revocation on August 6, 2024.
3 II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
The circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be
overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, at 2,
682 S.W.3d 662, 664. 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, at 4, 566 S.W.3d 469, 471. 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. Id. Sentencing is entirely a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id. Sentencing shall
not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of
the crime. Hale v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 405, at 4, 443 S.W.3d 533, 535. The petitioner seeking
relief under section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of demonstrating that his or her sentence
was illegal. Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, at 3, 566 S.W.3d at 471. 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, at 7, 594 S.W.3d 54, 58. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear
and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, and typically, trial error does
not implicate the jurisdiction of the circuit court or, as a consequence, implicate the facial
validity of the judgment. Id., 594 S.W.3d at 59.
III. Discussion
4 For reversal, Brown argues that she was denied her right to effective assistance of
counsel because she was forced to sign a plea agreement and because her counsel did not
prevent her probation revocation on a sentence that had already expired. As an initial matter,
Brown did not assert these ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in her petitions below, and
the circuit court did not rule on them. Our supreme court has held that in an appeal from
the denial of an illegal-sentence petition, it is incumbent upon an appellant to obtain a ruling
on specific claims for the arguments to have been preserved for appeal. Heringer v. State, 2009
Ark. 376, at 1 (per curiam). This court does not address new arguments raised for the first
time on appeal. Dirickson v. State, 2021 Ark. 36, at 3, 617 S.W.3d 712, 715. Moreover, even
if she had preserved her arguments for appeal, allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel
are not sufficient to demonstrate that a judgment is facially illegal. Leach v. State, 2017 Ark.
176, at 4, 518 S.W.3d 670, 673. Thus, such claims are not cognizable as a ground for relief
under section 16-90-111. Id. Ineffective-assistance claims are properly raised in a timely filed
petition pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. Id.
On appeal, Brown does not directly challenge the circuit court’s finding that her
concurrent three-year sentences on the probation revocation were legal. Therefore, any
challenge to that finding has been abandoned on appeal. Mister v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 49,
at 2 n.1. Even if she had challenged the circuit court’s finding, however, Brown’s sentences
are still facially legal. When the circuit court revokes a defendant’s probation, it may enter a
judgment of conviction and may impose any sentence on the defendant that might have
been imposed originally for the offense of which he or she was found guilty. Ark. Code Ann.
5 § 16-93-308(g)(1)(A) (Supp. 2021). Brown’s probation was revoked on the underlying charges
of second-degree domestic battering and failure to appear, which were Class C felonies when
she committed the crimes in October 2022 (battering) and January 2023 (failure to appear).
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-26-304(b)(1), 5-54-120(c)(1) (Supp. 2021). A Class C felony carries a
sentencing range of not less than three nor more than ten years’ imprisonment. Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(4) (Repl. 2013). Brown’s concurrent thirty-six-month sentences for
violating her probation conditions were within the statutory range for her two convictions.
Thus, had Brown challenged those sentences on appeal, she would not have met her burden
of demonstrating that they were facially illegal. See Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, at 3–4, 566 S.W.3d
at 471. The circuit court’s denial of relief under section 16-90-111 was not clearly erroneous,
and we affirm the circuit court’s orders.
Affirmed.
ABRAMSON and HARRISON, JJ., agree.
Iris Brown, pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.