Michael P. McGill v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 66

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 66 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-301

Opinion Delivered: May 8, 2025 MICHAEL P. MCGILL APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT V. [NO. 66FCR-21-904]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE R. GUNNER DELAY, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

Appellant Michael P. McGill appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of his pro se

petition to correct his sentence, which he alleged was “imposed in an illegal manner.” The

circuit court found that the petition, filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-

90-111 (Repl. 2016), was untimely. On appeal, McGill reargues the grounds alleged in his

petition: his sentence is illegal because he was not arraigned within seventy-two hours as

required by federal criminal procedure, his rape charge was illegally altered, counsel was

ineffective and coerced him to plead guilty, and relevant documentary evidence was

withheld. None of these arguments address the circuit court’s finding that the petition was

untimely, and therefore, we summarily affirm.

I. Background

McGill’s sentencing order reflects that he pleaded guilty to rape by forcible

compulsion and was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment followed by three hundred

months’ suspended imposition of sentence. The sentencing order was entered in April 2022. McGill subsequently filed, and later withdrew, a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The

habeas petition was dismissed by the circuit court on April 10, 2024.

McGill first drafted a petition to correct his sentence in August 2023. However, the

circuit court denied McGill’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis. In December 2023,

McGill drafted and filed a second petition. The circuit court denied the petition on April

18, 2024, and McGill filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. Standard of Review

The trial 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.

III. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-90-111

We are mindful that the plain text of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111(a)

provides authority to a trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. An illegal

sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, 682 S.W.3d 662.

A sentence is illegal on its face when it is void because it is beyond the trial court’s authority

to impose and gives rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. The general rule is

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

face. Id.

However, claims that do not implicate the facial validity of the judgment are claims

that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner and are governed by the time limitations

set forth in Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) (2024). To the extent a claim is 2 cognizable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, section 16-90-111 has been superseded by Rule 37.

Claims cognizable under Rule 37 must be treated as having been raised under it, irrespective

of the label placed on it by the petitioner. E.g., Stanley v. State, 2013 Ark. 483, at 3-4 (per

curiam). Under Rule 37.2(c), if the judgment was the result of a guilty plea, then the petition

had to be filed within ninety days of the date the order was entered by the trial court. Id.

IV. Claims for Relief

McGill claims that his sentence is illegal because he was not arraigned within seventy-

two hours as required by federal rules and that his trial counsel failed to investigate his claim,

refused to allow McGill to assist in his own defense, withheld documentary evidence from

him, and coerced him into a guilty plea. Essentially, McGill is alleging that that his sentence

was imposed in violation of his right to due process and right to competent counsel. These

are claims that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, and as such, are governed by

the time limitations set out in Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c). White v. State,

2024 Ark. 11, 682 S.W.3d 7. Accordingly, the time for filing a petition under section 16-

90-111 alleging that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner was due on July 25,

2022, ninety days from the date his sentencing order was entered on April 26, 2022. See

Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) (2022). The time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) are

jurisdictional in nature, and if they are not met, a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider

a petition pursuant to section 16-90-111. Smith v. State, 2009 Ark. 85. Therefore, the circuit

court did not clearly err when it found that McGill’s section 16-90-111 petition was

untimely and dismissed his petition.

Affirmed. Michael McGill, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3