Iris Brown v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Iris Brown’s pro se petitions to correct an illegal sentence under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111. The court held that Brown’s ineffective-assistance claims were unpreserved and not cognizable under the statute, and that her concurrent thirty-six-month sentences imposed after probation revocation were facially legal because they fell within the statutory range for her Class C felony convictions.

Holdings

1. An appellant must obtain a ruling on specific claims in an illegal-sentence proceeding to preserve those claims for appeal; arguments raised for the first time on appeal will not be addressed.
2. Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims do not establish that a judgment is facially illegal and are not cognizable grounds for relief under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111; such claims must be raised in a timely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1.
3. Concurrent thirty-six-month sentences imposed after revocation of Brown's probation were facially legal because they fell within the three-to-ten-year statutory sentencing range for each underlying Class C felony.
4. The circuit court did not clearly err in denying Brown's petitions to correct an illegal sentence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brown's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were preserved for appellate review when she did not raise them in her petitions below.
2. Whether ineffective-assistance-of-counsel allegations are cognizable in a petition to correct an illegal sentence under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111.
3. Whether Brown's concurrent thirty-six-month sentences imposed after probation revocation were facially illegal.
4. Whether the circuit court clearly erred by denying Brown's petitions to correct an illegal sentence.

Disposition

affirmed