Hayes 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.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, holding that Appellant failed to allege that his sentence was facially illegal or that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 336 months' imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence, but none of Appellant's claims asserted that his sentence was facially illegal or that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Appellant's petition to correct an illegal sentence.
Download PDF
Cite as 2021 Ark. 95 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-599 Opinion Delivered: April 29, 2021 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HAYES APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 63CR-14-333] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS, JUDGE AFFIRMED. RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice Steven Christopher Hayes appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016). Hayes argues the circuit court erroneously denied him relief because at his plea hearing the court did not (1) comply with Rule 24.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, (2) inform him, according to Rule 25.3, that the court did not have to accept the recommended sentence, (3) ensure his admission of guilt or that the facts supported the charge, and (4) protect him from pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit. Hayes also contends he did not commit the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. Because Hayes fails to allege that his sentence is facially illegal or that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm. I. Background The State charged Hayes with eleven counts of the rape of his minor daughter and three counts of terroristic threatening. Hayes entered a negotiated plea reducing four counts of rape to four counts of first-degree sexual assault. In exchange for his plea, the State dismissed the remaining seven counts of rape and the three counts of terroristic threatening. The circuit court sentenced Hayes to 336 months’ imprisonment. Hayes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied, alleging that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction for accepting his guilty plea before his mental evaluation was filed. We affirmed the denial. Hayes v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 79. Hayes also filed three petitions for writ of error coram nobis alleging that (1) he was insane at the plea hearing, (2) his guilty plea was coerced, and (3) that the State withheld material evidence of the victim’s inconsistent statements. We affirmed. Hayes v. State, 2020 Ark. 311, 608 S.W.3d 142. II. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-90-111 This court will overturn a circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 only if that decision is clearly erroneous. Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that there has been a mistake. Id. Section 16-90-111(a) gives authority to a circuit court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. Redus v. State, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469. An illegal sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Id. A sentence is illegal on its face when it is void because it is beyond the circuit court’s authority to impose or it gives rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Sentencing is a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id. The petitioner seeking relief under 2 section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of showing that his or her sentence was illegal. Id. The general rule is that a sentence imposed within the maximum term prescribed by law is not illegal on its face. McArty v. State, 2020 Ark. 68, 594 S.W.3d 54. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes, and typically, trial error does not implicate the jurisdiction of the circuit court or the facial validity of the judgment. Id. III. Claims for Relief Hayes’s claims below and now on appeal allege that the trial court failed to (1) comply with Rule 24.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, (2) comply with Rule 25.3, (3) ensure his admission of guilt or that the facts supported the charge, and (4) safeguard him from pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit. Hayes claims he is innocent. None of these claims assert that his sentence is facially illegal or that the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction. Thus, Hayes’s claims fail to state a ground for relief pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111. Hayes’s claims go behind the face of the judgment and do not implicate its facial validity. He could have raised these claims in a Rule 37.2(c) petition, filed within ninety days of the date of the December 2014 sentencing order. Redus, 2019 Ark. 44, 566 S.W.3d 469. Yet he did not timely file a Rule 37.2(c) petition, and the time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c)(i) are mandatory. Id. A petition under section 16-90-111 is not a substitute for timely petitioning under Rule 37.2(c). Id. 3 Furthermore, Hayes’s sentence was for an aggregate 336 months—or twenty-eight years’ imprisonment—for the offense of first-degree sexual assault. First-degree sexual assault is a Class A felony offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-124(d) (Repl. 2006). A Class A felony carries a maximum sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment, making Hayes’s sentence legal on its face. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(2) (Repl. 2006). The circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Hayes’s petition to correct an illegal sentence. Affirmed. Steven C. Hayes, pro se appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 4
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.
