Murray F. Armstrong v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

May 10, 2001

MURRAY F. ARMSTRONG

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellees

CR 99-901

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY, CR 96-39, 97-35, & 97-36, HONORABLE LARRY W. CHANDLER, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Murray F. Armstrong, pled guilty to eleven counts of felony theft of property in the Cleveland County Circuit Court in August, 1997.1 The circuit court accepted his plea, and sentenced appellant to sixty months' imprisonment on each count, running them consecutively for a total of fifty-five years' imprisonment.

Appellant subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 that raised nine claims for postconviction relief. The circuit court conducted a hearing and subsequently denied appellant's petition. In this appeal, appellant submits that the circuit court erred in denying relief on his claim that his sentencing violated Ark. R. Cr. P. 24.6 and his right to Due Process because the sentencing court failed to make sufficient inquiry into the factual basis of his plea. Appellant contends that the facts, as stated at the plea hearing and in the plea agreement, are insufficient to constitute the theftof property crimes to which he pleaded guilty. He further contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that the allegedly missing facts could be supplied at subsequent hearings. We find no error and affirm.

We will not reverse a trial court's findings granting or denying postconviction relief absent clear error. State v. Herred, 332 Ark. 241, 251, 964 S.W.2d 391, 397 (1998). When a defendant pleads guilty, the only claims cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings are those which allege that the plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently or was entered without effective assistance of counsel. Id. Appellant's claims on appeal are not cognizable because they do not relate to whether his pleas were intelligently and voluntarily entered with the advice of competent counsel. See Mills v. State, 338 Ark. 603, 606, 999 S.W.2d 674, 675 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order denying relief.

Affirmed.

1 The complicated procedural history of this case is recounted in Armstrong v. Norris, 337 Ark. 169, 989 S.W.2d 157 (1999), and State v. Circuit Court of Lincoln County, 336 Ark. 122, 984 S.W.2d 412 (1999).