Heringer v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-938
Opinion Delivered
June 25, 2009
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY,
WESTERN DISTRICT, CR 2004-537,
HON. JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE
CARL HERINGER, JR.
Appellant
v.
AFFIRMED.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
In a 2004 negotiated plea agreement, appellant Carl Heringer, Jr., entered an unconditional
plea of guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and the appellee State
entered a nolle prosequi as to four other criminal counts. Appellant was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment and an additional five years’ suspended imposition of sentence. Appellant had no
right of appeal from the unconditional plea. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 1(a); also Seibs v. State, 357
Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004); Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003).
In 2008, appellant filed in the trial court a petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 (1987). The trial court denied the petition, and appellant has
lodged a pro se appeal here from the order.
We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly
erroneous. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous
when, although there was 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 committed. Flores v.
State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).
Section 16-90-111 has been superseded to the extent that it conflicts with the time limitations
for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. State v. Wilmoth,
369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007). As appellant entered a guilty plea to the criminal charge filed
against him, he was required to seek relief under this statute within ninety days from the date that
the judgment was entered. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c); State v. Wilmoth, supra. Appellant’s petition
was filed almost four years after that date and was therefore not timely as a request for relief pursuant
to section 16-90-111. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s petition.
We note that appellant asked the trial court, and now asks this court, to issue a declaratory
judgment pertaining to his parole-eligibility in the underlying criminal sentence. However, the trial
court’s order addressed appellant’s petition only as one under section 16-90-111, and not as a
complaint for declaratory judgment pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-111-101–111 (Repl.
2006). It was incumbent upon appellant to obtain a ruling on specific claims in order for the
arguments to have been preserved for appeal. Otis v. State, 364 Ark. 151, 160, 217 S.W.3d 839, 844
(2005); Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157, 118 S.W.3d 567 (2003). Here, appellant’s failure to do so
precludes this court from addressing on appeal any declaratory judgment matters. Id.
Affirmed.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
