Johnson v. State (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
On October 24, 2007, Napolean Johnson was charged with several drug-related offenses. On March 23, 2010, Johnson was charged with two misdemeanors and kidnapping, a felony. Johnson entered negotiated pleas of guilty in both cases and was sentenced to one year on each misdemeanor conviction and to ten years on each felony conviction. The sentences were to run concurrently for a total term of ten years. The Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) subsequently decided that Johnson would be required to serve the entirety of his ten-year sentence for kidnapping because he was ineligible for parole pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-93-609. Johnson filed a motion to modify sentence to conform with the intent of the parties, challenging the ADC's decision to apply section 16-93-609, a parole-eligibility statute, to his sentence. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Johnson's appeal, holding (1) Johnson's argument that the ADC should make him eligible for parole was not a recognized exception for an appeal following a guilty plea; and (2) because Johnson's sentence had been placed into execution, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant Johnson the relief request, nor did the Court.
Download PDF
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR11-736
NAPOLEAN JOHNSON, JR.
APPELLANT
Opinion Delivered
May 17, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NOS. CR-2007-1015-5 AND
CR-2010-194-5]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE JODI RAINES
DENNIS, JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice
Johnson appeals to this court to enforce the terms of his plea agreement and to prevent
the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) from ignoring the judgment and commitment
order. The State has moved to dismiss Johnson’s appeal on the basis that the circuit court
lacked jurisdiction to modify his sentence and, in turn, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider
his appeal. We agree that the circuit court correctly ruled that it lacked jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss Johnson’s appeal.
On October 24, 2007, in case number CR-2007-1015-5, appellant, Napolean
Johnson, Jr., was charged with (1) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver,
crack cocaine, a class Y felony; (2) possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver,
marijuana, a class C felony; (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, a class C felony; (4)
unauthorized use of property to facilitate a crime, a class B felony; and (5) possession of drug
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
paraphernalia with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, crack cocaine, a class C
felony. On March 23, 2010, Johnson was charged in case number CR-2010-194-5 with (1)
terroristic threatening in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor; (2) kidnapping, a class Y
felony; and (3) battery in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor.
On November 17, 2010, Johnson entered a negotiated plea of guilty, in case number
CR-2007-1015-5, to (1) possession of cocaine, a class C felony; (2) possession of marijuana
with intent to deliver, a class C felony; and (3) possession of drug paraphernalia, a class C
felony. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to reduce the charge of possession of
cocaine with intent to deliver, which was a class Y felony, to simple possession. The State
also nolle-prossed the charges of unauthorized use of property to facilitate a crime and
possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Johnson
then pled guilty, in case number CR-2010-194-5, to (1) second-degree terroristic
threatening, a class A misdemeanor; (2) kidnapping, a class B felony; and (3) third-degree
battery, a class A misdemeanor. In exchange for Johnson’s plea, the State agreed to reduce
the class Y kidnapping charge to class B kidnapping.
Johnson was sentenced as a habitual offender pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated
§ 5-4-501(b) to one year on each misdemeanor conviction and to ten years on each felony
conviction. The sentences were to run concurrently for a total term of ten years. The
judgment and commitment order reflecting his plea and sentence was entered on December
1, 2010.
2
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
On January 7, 2011, the ADC issued a time-computation card, which showed that
Johnson would be required to serve the entirety of his ten-year sentence for kidnapping
because he was ineligible for parole pursuant to Act 1805 of 2001, codified at Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-93-609. That statute excludes from parole eligibility a person who
commits a violent felony offense after having previously been convicted of a violent felony
offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-609(b) (Repl. 2006). Because of this, Johnson filed a
“Motion to Modify Sentence to Conform with the Intent of the Parties” on February 3,
2011. In his motion, Johnson alleged that he was sentenced under Arkansas Code Annotated
section 5-4-501(b), and not section 16-93-609, and that no agency, like the ADC, should
have the authority to change the terms of a plea bargain. He moved that the court “modify
his sentence and amend the judgment to show that he was not sentenced under the provisions
of Act 1805 A.C.A. 16-93-609.” The State responded that amending the judgment as
requested would amount to a modification of Johnson’s sentence, which the circuit court had
no jurisdiction to do. This lack of jurisdiction was due to the fact that his sentence, which
Johnson did not contest as illegal or illegally imposed, had already been put into execution.
On April 29, 2011, the circuit court denied Johnson’s motion and explained in its
order:
The defendant seeks modification of his sentence as a result of the effect of A.C.A. §
16-93-609 on his parole eligibility. He asked the court to order that the Arkansas
Department of Correction not apply A.C.A. § 16-93-609 to his sentence. Unless a
sentence is illegal or illegally imposed, this court does not have jurisdiction to modify
a sentence once the sentence is executed. The defendant does not argue that his
sentence is illegal or illegally imposed. Parole eligibility is within the prerogative of
the Arkansas Department of Correction. The motion is denied.
3
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
Johnson moved for reconsideration on May 4, 2011, and requested that the court
reconsider its decision and give him the benefit of his plea bargain, which would include
directing the ADC not to apply section 16-93-609 to his sentence. His motion for
reconsideration was not ruled on by the circuit court, and he filed a notice of appeal.
We first note that Johnson does not contend that his sentence is illegal or illegally
imposed by the circuit court. Instead, his disagreement is with the ADC and its decision to
apply section 16-93-609, a parole-eligibility statute, to his sentence. Accordingly, we
question whether he has chosen the right vehicle to raise this issue because he is not really
seeking a modification of sentence. Rather, he is asking that this court direct the ADC to
make him eligible for parole. This is not a recognized exception for an appeal following a
guilty plea. See Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304, 5 S.W.3d 41 (1999) (noting the following
exceptions to the general rule that there is no appeal from a plea of guilty: (1) appeals
following a conditional guilty plea; (2) appeals relating to issues involving testimony and
evidence which occurred after the guilty plea but before statutorily authorized sentencing
hearings; and (3) appeals from postjudgment motions to amend incorrect or illegal sentences,
which follow a guilty plea).
Moreover, there is no question that Johnson’s sentence has been placed into execution
because he is presently incarcerated in the ADC. The record reflects that the judgment and
commitment order was entered on December 1, 2010, which means it was put into execution
on that date. See Gates v. State, 353 Ark. 333, 107 S.W.3d 868 (2003). This court has long
held that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to modify, amend, or revise a valid sentence once
4
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
it is placed into execution. See Green v. State, 2009 Ark. 113, 313 S.W.3d 521 (citing Gavin
v. State, 354 Ark. 425, 125 S.W.3d 189 (2003)). Generally speaking, absent a statute, rule,
or available writ, once the circuit court enters a judgment and commitment order, jurisdiction
is transferred to the executive branch of our government for implementation. Richie v. State,
2009 Ark. 602, 357 S.W.3d 909. And the circuit court does not have the authority to place
conditions as to parole eligibility on the sentence announced. Morris v. State, 333 Ark. 466,
970 S.W.2d 210 (1998). Again, Johnson makes no argument that the sentence itself is invalid.
His allegation, in reality, is a challenge to the calculation of his parole eligibility and the
ADC’s application of a parole-eligibility statute to his sentence.
Parole eligibility falls clearly within the domain of the executive branch and specifically
the ADC, as fixed by statute. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-402(a) (Repl. 2006) (“[A] defendant
convicted of a felony and sentenced to imprisonment shall be committed to the custody of
the Department of Correction for the term of his or her sentence or until released in
accordance with law.”). Accordingly, the judiciary has no jurisdiction over how parole
eligibility is determined or the conditions to be placed on it once the sentence is placed into
execution. See Richie, 2009 Ark. 602, at 11, 357 S.W.3d at 915 (Circuit court lacked the
authority to require defendant to undergo drug and alcohol treatment as a condition of his
incarceration.); see also Ark. Dep’t of Corr. v. Stapleton, 345 Ark. 500, 51 S.W.3d 862 (2001)
(Once a valid judgment and commitment order is entered, a circuit court has no authority to
order where the sentence will be served.). The circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant
5
Cite as 2012 Ark. 212
Johnson the relief requested; nor does this court. We grant the State’s motion to dismiss the
appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
6
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.
