Watson v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseIn 2008, Appellant entered a guilty plea to first-degree battery and being a felon in possession of a firearm. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se “Motion to Enforce Guilty Plea Agreement” alleging that his counsel did not obtain the correct information regarding his sentence and that the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) improperly changed and enhanced his sentence by calculating his parole-eligibility date in a way that did not conform to the plea agreement. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that it was an untimely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The Supreme court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) to the extent Appellant’s claims could be construed as a challenge to the ADC’s actions, the challenge was not cognizable in a motion for relief filed in the trial court; and (2) to the extent Appellant’s claims could be construed as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, a request for modification of his sentence, or for vacation of the judgment, the motion fell within the purview of Rule 37.1 and was untimely filed.
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.