Steven Christopher Hayes v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 95

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: April 29, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-599

Opinion Delivered: April 29, 2021 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HAYES APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-14-333]

HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

Steven Christopher Hayes appeals 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). Hayes argues the circuit court erroneously denied him relief because at his plea

hearing the court did not (1) comply with Rule 24.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal

Procedure, (2) inform him, according to Rule 25.3, that the court did not have to accept the

recommended sentence, (3) ensure his admission of guilt or that the facts supported the

charge, and (4) protect him from pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit. Hayes also

contends he did not commit the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. Because Hayes fails to

allege that his sentence is facially illegal or that the trial court lacked subject-matter

jurisdiction, we affirm.

I. Background The State charged Hayes with eleven counts of the rape of his minor daughter and

three counts of terroristic threatening. Hayes entered a negotiated plea reducing four counts

of rape to four counts of first-degree sexual assault. In exchange for his plea, the State

dismissed the remaining seven counts of rape and the three counts of terroristic threatening.

The circuit court sentenced Hayes to 336 months’ imprisonment. Hayes filed a petition for

writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, alleging that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction

for accepting his guilty plea before his mental evaluation was filed. We affirmed the denial.

Hayes v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 79. Hayes also filed three petitions for writ of error coram nobis

alleging that (1) he was insane at the plea hearing, (2) his guilty plea was coerced, and (3) that

the State withheld material evidence of the victim’s inconsistent statements. We affirmed.

Hayes v. State, 2020 Ark. 311, 608 S.W.3d 142.

II. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-90-111

This court will overturn a circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section

16-90-111 only if that decision is clearly erroneous. Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38. 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. Id.

Section 16-90-111(a) gives 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 or it gives rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Id. Sentencing is a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id. The petitioner seeking relief under

2 section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of showing that his or her sentence was illegal. Id.

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. 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

the facial validity of the judgment. Id.

III. Claims for Relief

Hayes’s claims below and now on appeal allege that the trial court failed to (1) comply

with Rule 24.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, (2) comply with Rule 25.3, (3)

ensure his admission of guilt or that the facts supported the charge, and (4) safeguard him

from pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit. Hayes claims he is innocent. None of

these claims assert that his sentence is facially illegal or that the circuit court lacked subject-

matter jurisdiction. Thus, Hayes’s claims fail to state a ground for relief pursuant to Arkansas

Code Annotated section 16-90-111.

Hayes’s claims go behind the face of the judgment and do not implicate its facial

validity. He could have raised these claims in a Rule 37.2(c) petition, filed within ninety days

of the date of the December 2014 sentencing order. Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469.

Yet he did not timely file a Rule 37.2(c) petition, and the time limitations imposed in Rule

37.2(c)(i) are mandatory. Id. A petition under section 16-90-111 is not a substitute for timely

petitioning under Rule 37.2(c). Id.

3 Furthermore, Hayes’s sentence was for an aggregate 336 months—or twenty-eight

years’ imprisonment—for the offense of first-degree sexual assault. First-degree sexual assault

is a Class A felony offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-124(d) (Repl. 2006). A Class A felony

carries a maximum sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment, making Hayes’s sentence legal on

its face. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(2) (Repl. 2006). The circuit court did not clearly err

when it denied Hayes’s petition to correct an illegal sentence.

Affirmed.

Steven C. Hayes, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.