Wesley Jefferson v. State of Arkansas

2024 Ark. 64

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: April 18, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. 64 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-23-318

Opinion Delivered: April 18, 2024 WESLEY JEFFERSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE ST. FRANCIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; MOTIONS FOR V. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF AND TO FILE STATE OF ARKANSAS EXHIBITS WITH REPLY BRIEF APPELLEE [NO. 62CR-05-513]

HONORABLE E. DION WILSON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS MOOT.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

Wesley Jefferson appeals from the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for

postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016).

On appeal, Jefferson argues that the circuit court erred by failing to make specific findings.

Jefferson does not argue the merits of his petition. He also asks for an extension of time to

file a reply brief and to file exhibits. Because the statute under which he seeks relief does

not require additional findings, we affirm. His motions are moot.

We will not reverse a trial court’s denial under section 16-90-111 unless that decision

is clearly erroneous. Gonder v. State, 2023 Ark. 122, at 2. Section 16-90-111(a) gives a circuit

court authority to “correct an illegal sentence at any time.” An illegal sentence is one that

is illegal on its face. Redus v. State, 2019 Ark. 44, at 3, 566 S.W.3d 469, 471. The petitioner

seeking relief under section 16-90-111(a) must demonstrate that his or her sentence was illegal. Id. The general rule is that typically 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 over violations of criminal statutes,

and typically, trial error does not implicate the jurisdiction of the trial court or implicate the

facial validity of the judgment. Id. at 7, 594 S.W.3d at 59.

Jefferson’s sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court failed to make specific

written findings of fact specifying which part of the record or files it relied on and failed to

make specific written conclusions of law with respect to every legal issue raised in the

petition. The circuit court’s order found that “the sentence in place against [Jefferson] is

hereby correct and that no illegal sentence was imposed upon [Jefferson].” More specific

findings were not required.

In his petition, Jefferson argued that the amended criminal information was

incomplete and that the trial judge committed misconduct by permitting his conviction to

stand on this defective information. Both claims of trial error are inappropriate for his current

petition. See Rea v. State, 2021 Ark. 134, at 4. Jefferson also makes allegations against his

trial counsel. Yet claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are also not cognizable in

proceedings to correct an illegal sentence. Mister v. State, 2022 Ark. 35, at 7, 639 S.W.3d

331, 336. In light of the foregoing, Jefferson’s petition was wholly without merit, and we

hold the circuit court’s order was sufficient. Accordingly, we affirm.

WEBB, J., concurs. Wesley Jefferson, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walter Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.