Pennington v. Hobbs (Per Curiam)
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.
Appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of first-degree murder and four counts of aggravated robbery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the charges. The sentencing orders in Appellant’s case referred to Appellant’s parole eligibility after serving one-third of his life sentences. However, parole eligbility was not authorized by the statute in effect at the time the crimes were committed. Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. On reconsideration, the Supreme Court granted the writ, holding that the sentencing orders entered against Appellant were facially invalid because the circuit court exceeded its authority in sentencing Appellant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. Remanded for resentencing.
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. 441 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-13-115 FREDERICK PENNINGTON, JR. APPELLANT Opinion Delivered October 23, 2014 PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 35CV-12-671] V. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE PETITION FOR REHEARING TREATED AS PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTED; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS REVERSED; WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ISSUED; REMANDED TO THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS. PER CURIAM Now before the court is a pro se petition for rehearing filed by appellant Frederick Pennington, Jr. The petition, properly treated as a petition for reconsideration, concerns our decision of September 4, 2014, dismissing appellant s appeal from the denial of habeas relief, denying his petition for habeas relief filed directly in this court, and finding his remaining motions to be moot. See Pennington v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 356, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam). In light of our decision in Hale v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 405, ___ S.W.3d ___, we grant appellant s petition for reconsideration.1 1 Appellant and Billy Ray Hale were co-defendants in Pulaski County Circuit Court Case Nos. 60CR-77-1933, 60CR-77-1934, and 60CR-77-1939. Like appellant, Hale appealed to this court from the denial of habeas relief. On appeal, we reversed and remanded on the ground that Cite as 2014 Ark. 441 On reconsideration, we find that the sentencing orders entered against appellant are facially invalid. While the specific issue was not raised by appellant, issues concerning a void or illegal sentence are akin to subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be waived by either party. Taylor v. State, 354 Ark. 450, 125 S.W.3d 174 (2003) (citing Flowers v. State, 347 Ark. 760, 68 S.W.3d 289 (2002)). This court may review a void or illegal judgment sua sponte regardless of whether the issue is raised by a party. See Harness v. State, 352 Ark. 335, 101 S.W.3d 235 (2003). As we noted in Hale, sentencing in Arkansas is entirely a matter of statute, and this court has consistently held that sentencing shall not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the commission of the crime. Hale, 2014 Ark. 405, ___ S.W.3d ___. When the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a circuit court, that sentence is unauthorized and illegal, and the case must be reversed and remanded. Id. Here, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the Pulaski County Circuit Court to one count of first-degree murder and four counts of aggravated robbery, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment for each of the charges. At the time the crimes were committed, first-degree murder and aggravated robbery were classified as Class A felonies. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-1502(3), 41-2102 (Repl. 1977). A Class A felony was punishable by not less than five years nor more than fifty years, or life. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-901. The sentencing orders entered in appellant s case referred to appellant s parole eligibility after serving one-third of his life sentences. However, under Arkansas Statutes Annotated section 43-2807(b)(1), which was the sentencing orders were facially invalid. Specifically, we held that the circuit court exceeded its authority by entering a sentence of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. The sentencing orders entered against appellant are identical to those entered against Hale. 2 Cite as 2014 Ark. 441 in effect at the time the crimes were committed, [i]ndividuals sentenced to life imprisonment prior to March 1, 1968, and those sentenced to life imprisonment after the effective date [February 12, 1969] of this Act, shall not be eligible for release on parole unless such sentence is commuted to a term of years by executive clemency. Thus, parole-eligibility was not authorized by the statute in effect at the time the crimes were committed, and the sentencing orders entered against appellant are facially invalid. Because the Pulaski County Circuit Court exceeded its authority in sentencing appellant to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, we reverse the denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, issue the writ, and remand to the Jefferson County Circuit Court with instructions to transfer the case to the Pulaski County Circuit Court for resentencing. The remaining motions and petition of which we disposed in Pennington, 2014 Ark. 356, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam) are moot. Pro se petition for rehearing treated as petition for reconsideration and granted; denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus reversed; writ of habeas corpus issued; remanded to the Jefferson County Circuit Court with instructions. Frederick Pennington, Jr., pro se appellant. Dustin McDaniel, Att y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass t Att y Gen., for appellee. 3
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.
