RONNIE FLOW, JR. v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

Cite as 2021 Ark. 48SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-20-502
Opinion Delivered: March 4, 2021
RONNIE FLOW, JR.
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT
V. [NO. 14CR-16-15]
HONORABLE DAVID W. TALLEY, JR.,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED.
BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice
Appellant Ronnie Flow, Jr., appeals from 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).
Flow alleged that a notation on the sentencing order made by the prosecutor that Flow was not
eligible for parole rendered the order facially illegal. The circuit court denied the petition. We
affirm.
I. Background
Flow was originally charged with two counts of rape involving an eleven-year-old victim
and a thirteen-year-old victim. On May 30, 2017, Flow entered a negotiated plea and pleaded
guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual assault. Flow was sentenced by the court on the first
count to 240 months’ imprisonment, and on the second count, Flow was sentenced to sixty months’
imprisonment followed by 180 months’ suspended imposition of sentence. The terms of
imprisonment were imposed consecutively for an aggregate term of 300 months’ imprisonment.
The face of the sentencing order also states that Flow was convicted of two previous sexual offenses:
the first conviction occurred in Columbia County, case number 14CR-96-143, and the second
conviction for a sexual offense occurred in Ouachita County, case number 52CR-98-136. After
the circuit court denied his petition, he appealed to this court.
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. Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38. Under section
16-90-111, 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.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, 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 and gives rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Sentencing is
entirely a matter of statute in Arkansas. Id. The petitioner seeking relief under section 16-90-111(a)
carries the burden to demonstrate 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, as a consequence, implicate the facial validity of the
judgment. Id.IV. Claims for Relief
Flow alleges that his sentencing order is illegal on its face because the prosecutor noted on
the order that Flow was not eligible for parole pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-
93-609 (Repl. 2016). Flow insists that section 16-93-609 is inapplicable because he did not commit
2
previous offenses and that the notation by the prosecutor on the sentencing order was made “after”
the circuit court signed the order. According to Flow, the prosecutor’s notation renders the order
illegal because it was added without the court’s knowledge or approval. Flow is mistaken. In
addition to the prosecutor’s notation, the body of the sentencing order reflects that Flow had been
convicted of two prior sex offenses that occurred in 1996 and 1998.
Section 16-93-609(b)(1) states that any person who commits any felony sex offense who has
previously been found guilty or pleaded guilty to any sex offense shall not be eligible for release on
parole. Flow offers no evidence to the circuit court that he was not convicted of the two prior
felony sexual offenses. He does not contend in his appellant’s brief that he was not convicted of the
1996 and 1998 felony sex offenses.1 Instead, he makes a conclusory allegation that someone at the
department of correction cannot determine the existence of his prior offenses for a parole-eligibility
determination. Notwithstanding his arguments to the contrary, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-609applies to Flow’s current conviction. Flow has failed to demonstrate that his sentences are illegal,
and the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Flow’s petition to correct an illegal sentence.
Affirmed.
Ronnie Flow, Jr., pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
1
Second-degree sexual assault is a Class B felony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125(b)(1)
(Repl. 2016). A Class B felony carries a maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. See Ark
Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(3) (Repl. 2016).
3