Willie McDaniels v. State of Arkansas
This text of 2025 Ark. 20 (Willie McDaniels v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2025 Ark. 20 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-144
Opinion Delivered: March 13, 2025 WILLIE MCDANIELS APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD DIVISION V. [NO. 60CR-09-187]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CATHLEEN V. APPELLEE COMPTON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Willie McDaniels appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition to correct
an illegal sentence. He filed his petition under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111
(Repl. 2016). The circuit court found his sentences were not illegal because both were
within the statutory range and that the sentencing court had followed the jury’s
recommendation. We affirm.
A jury convicted McDaniels of two counts of rape, and he was sentenced to
concurrent terms of 480 months’ imprisonment on each count. The Arkansas Court of
Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. McDaniels v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 219. Subsequently, he
sought postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The circuit
court denied relief, and we affirmed. McDaniels v. State, 2014 Ark. 181, 432 S.W.3d 644.
Now, McDaniels claims his sentence is illegal. The circuit court denied his petition, and he
appeals. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111(a) provides authority to a trial court to
correct an illegal sentence at any time. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, at 2, 682 S.W.3d
662, 664. An illegal sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Id. The petitioner seeking
relief under section 16-90-111(a) has the burden of showing the 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. Id.
On review, a circuit court’s decision to deny relief under section 16-90-111 will be
overturned only if that decision is clearly erroneous. Harmon v. State, 2023 Ark. 120, at 2,
673 S.W.3d 797, 799. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after
reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made. Id. McDaniels’s petition alleged that his sentences were illegal because they
departed from the sentencing guidelines. The circuit court explained that at the time of his
sentence, a Class Y felony carried a sentencing range of not less than ten years and not more
than forty years, or life. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401 (Repl. 2006). McDaniels was sentenced
to concurrent terms of 480 months’ imprisonment on each of the two counts of rape, Class
Y felonies. Thus, McDaniels’s sentences were within the statutory range and are facially
legal. As a result, the circuit court dismissed the petition.
On appeal, McDaniels abandons his argument that the sentences are illegal because
they depart from the general sentencing guidelines. Rather, he now argues that his Sixth
Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury was violated because trial counsel was
ineffective by (1) remaining silent when the trial court ordered the jury to continue
deliberations when it initially returned a hung verdict on count one; (2) being inattentive
2 during the jury trial; and (3) remaining silent when there was a failure to have
documentation attached to the judgment and commitment order supporting the reasons for
the sentencing departure. These arguments were not raised below. We do not address
arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. 209, at 4,
549 S.W.3d 346, 348. Likewise, issues raised below but not argued on appeal are considered
abandoned. Cullen v. State, 2023 Ark. 172, at 3, 678 S.W.3d 20, 22.
Accordingly, as all arguments are either abandoned or not preserved for review, we
affirm the circuit court’s denial of the petition to correct an illegal sentence.
Special Justice MARK ALLISON joins.
BRONNI, J., not participating.
Willie McDaniels, pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 Ark. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-mcdaniels-v-state-of-arkansas-ark-2025.