Darren Woodruff v. State of Arkansas ( 2024 )

Cite as 2024 Ark. 13SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-23-439
Opinion Delivered: February 8, 2024
DARREN WOODRUFF
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT
V.
[NO. 09CV-23-38]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE QUINCEY ROSS,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Darren Woodruff appeals from the denial of his pro se petition to correct
an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl.
2016).1 For reversal, Woodruff argues that the circuit court erred in rejecting his claims that
his judgment of conviction for capital murder was illegal because he was not convicted of
an underlying felony and because his sentencing order lacked the subsection of capital
murder of which he was convicted. We affirm.
I. Background
On April 22, 1992, Woodruff was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment without parole. This court affirmed the judgment and sentence. Woodruff v.
State, 313 Ark. 585, 586, 856 S.W.2d 299, 300 (1993). On March 30, 2023, Woodruff filed
1
While the petition was placed on the civil docket in the circuit court in an apparent
clerical error, petitions under the statute are properly placed on a circuit court’s criminal
docket. The incorrect docket number does not affect the validity of the court’s decision on
the petition or this court’s authority to rule on the appeal.
his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence claiming he wasn’t convicted of an
underlying felony and the sentencing order lacked the subsection of capital murder of which
he was convicted. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that “the sentence is
not illegal on its face. The range of punishment available for Capital Murder has not been
exceeded.” It further found that “any other arguments cannot be dealt with under this
statute due to the time limitations expressed under [it].” This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
The circuit court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be
overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Harmon v. State, 2023 Ark. 120, at 2,
673 S.W.3d 797, 799. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is 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 made. Id., 673 S.W.3d at 799.
III. Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-90-111
Section 16-90-111(a) provides authority to a circuit court to correct an illegal
sentence at any time. Redus v. State, 2019 Ark. 44, at 4, 566 S.W.3d 469, 471. An illegal
sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Id., 566 S.W.3d at 471. A sentence is illegal on its
face when it is void because it is beyond the circuit court’s authority to impose and gives
rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id., 566 S.W.3d at 471. Sentencing is
entirely a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id., 566 S.W.3d at 471. The petitioner seeking relief
under section 16-90-111(a) carries the burden of demonstrating that his or her sentence was
illegal. Id., 566 S.W.3d at 471. 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, at
2
6, 594 S.W.3d 54, 59. 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, as a consequence, implicate the facial validity of the
judgment. Id., 594 S.W.3d at 59.
IV. Claim of an Illegal Sentence
With respect to Woodruff’s argument that his sentence is illegal because he was not
convicted of an underlying felony to capital murder, the statute in effect when he committed
the offense in June 1991 did not require an underlying felony. Arkansas Code Annotated
section 5-10-101(a)(4) (Supp. 1989) provides that a person could commit capital murder if,
with premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, he caused
the death of another person. Woodruff concedes that he was convicted of this offense and
that it is reflected in the copy of the felony information that he appended to his petition.
The face of the judgment reveals that the murder for which Woodruff was convicted was
committed on June 22, 1991. When Woodruff committed the crime, a defendant could not
be convicted for both capital murder and its underlying felony.2 See McArthur v. State, 2019
Ark. 220, at 5, 577 S.W.3d 385, 388. Here, the face of the judgment and commitment
order reflects that Woodruff was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole for capital murder in keeping with the law that was in effect when the crime was
committed. The sentence of life without parole for capital murder is not an illegal sentence
2
Act 657 of 1995 amended the relevant statute to allow for separate convictions for
both capital murder and an underlying felony.
3
in that the sentence imposed on Woodruff was within the bounds of the statute. See Ark.
Code Ann. § 5-10-101(c) (1987).
V. Timeliness of Petition
Although section 16-90-111 allows a circuit court to correct a sentence that is illegal
on its face at any time, a claim for relief that is based on the assertion that the sentence was
imposed in an illegal manner must be brought within the time limits set out in Arkansas
Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c). Harmon, 2023 Ark. 120, at 3, 673 S.W.3d at 800.
Woodruff’s claims that he was not convicted of an underlying felony and that the sentencing
order did not set out the subsection of capital murder do not implicate the facial validity of
the judgment. Id., 673 S.W.3d at 800. As such, these are assertions that the sentence was
imposed in an illegal manner and, accordingly, are governed by the time limitations in Rule
37.2(c).
Effective January 1, 1991, Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides, in pertinent part, that if an appeal was taken of the judgment of conviction, a
petition claiming postconviction relief must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of
the date the mandate was issued by the appellate court. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).
Woodruff filed his petition approximately thirty years after the judgment in his case was
affirmed. A petition filed pursuant to section 16-90-111 is not a substitute for a timely filed
petition under Rule 37. Hall v. State, 2022 Ark. 16, at 4, 638 S.W.3d 270, 274.
Affirmed.
WOMACK, J., dissents.
4
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Justice, dissenting. For the reasons outlined in my
dissenting opinion in Perry v. Payne, I respectfully dissent. 2022 Ark. 112, at 5.
Darren Woodruff, pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5