Thernell Hundley v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 53

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 53 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-506

Opinion Delivered: May 1, 2025 THERNELL HUNDLEY APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 10CR-79-103] V. HONORABLE GRISHAM A. STATE OF ARKANSAS PHILLIPS, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Thernell Hundley appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his pro se

petition to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section

16-90-111(a) (Repl. 2016). For reversal, Hundley contends that his judgment of conviction

for rape is illegal because the rape was the underlying felony for a separate charge and

conviction for capital murder. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that the

same argument was raised and rejected in Hundley v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 19, 682 S.W.3d 665

(Hundley I). The court further found that Hundley had failed to demonstrate that the rape

judgment is illegal on its face. We affirm.

In July 1980, Hundley pleaded guilty to capital murder and rape. 1 Two separate

judgments were entered. The first judgment imposed a mandatory sentence of life without

1 When Hundley committed the crime of capital murder, it was classified as a Class A felony, which was the highest class of felony. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-901 (Repl. 1977); parole for capital murder, and the second judgment imposed a life sentence for rape that was

later reduced to a sentence of fifty years’ imprisonment.2 When he committed the crimes in

September 1979, Hundley was seventeen years old.

Under our standard of review, a circuit court’s decision to deny relief under Arkansas

Code Annotated section 16-90-111 will not be overturned unless that decision is clearly

erroneous. Todd v. State, 2023 Ark. 121. 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.

Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 provides authority to a circuit court to

correct an illegal sentence at any time. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, 682 S.W.3d 662. 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.

A petitioner seeking relief under section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of demonstrating

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. Hall v. State, 2022 Ark. 16,

638 S.W.3d 270. While a circuit court may correct an illegal sentence at any time, an

argument that a sentence is imposed in an illegal manner is subject to the time limitations

Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1501 (Repl. 1977). Likewise, rape was classified as a Class A felony. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1803 (Repl. 1977). 2 The sentence was reduced to fifty years’ imprisonment in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010).

2 of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c). See Green v. State, 2021 Ark. 19, 615

S.W.3d 389.

Here, Hundley claims that his sentence for rape is illegal because it was the underlying

felony for the charge of capital murder and therefore should have been merged with the

capital-murder conviction in accordance with the law in effect at the time of the crime. See

Richie v. State, 298 Ark. 358, 767 S.W.2d 522 (1989) (underlying felony conviction merged

with capital-felony-murder conviction). However, the record demonstrates that there are

two separate judgments entered in two separate cases, and the judgment for rape is not illegal

on its face.

As set forth in Hundley I, this court made clear that the merger doctrine must be

raised in the circuit court before it may be addressed on direct appeal. See Hundley I, 2024

Ark. 19, at 6, 682 S.W.3d at 670 (citing Abernathy v. State, 278 Ark. 250, 644 S.W.2d 590

(1983)). Although the question of subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time

regardless of whether it was challenged in the circuit court, noncompliance with the merger

doctrine is not a jurisdictional question. A guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects and

errors. Garrett v. State, 296 Ark. 550, 759 S.W.2d 23 (1988).

When Hundley pleaded guilty to both rape and capital murder, any challenges to

errors or defects in the charging or sentencing process were waived. If the circuit court erred

by accepting Hundley’s guilty plea to rape, the issue should have been raised at the time of

the plea hearing. The judgment for capital murder does not list the underlying felony.

Hundley relies on the charging information for capital murder in challenging the legality of

the judgment for rape. Allegations that go behind the face of the judgment do not implicate

3 the facial validity of the judgment, and a petitioner is obligated to pursue such claims within

the time limits imposed by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c). Redus v. State,

2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469.

As stated above, two separate judgments were entered in Hundley’s criminal cases,

and neither judgment is illegal on its face because the sentences imposed were within the

maximum range for a Class A felony. In 1979, when Hundley committed the crime of rape,

it was classified as a Class A felony punishable by imprisonment for not less than five years

nor more than fifty years, or life. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-901 and -1803. Hundley’s fifty-

year sentence for rape does not exceed the maximum penalty for a rape that occurred in

1979. Accordingly, the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Hundley’s petition

to correct an illegal sentence.

Affirmed.

Special Justice KATIE HENRY joins.

BRONNI, J., not participating.

Thernell Hundley, pro se appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.