Swift v. State

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s pro se petition and amended petition to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court ruled that Appellant was not entitled to relief under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 because he did not establish that his sentences were illegal on their face. The court further held that, to the extent Appellant raised claims pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, his claims were untimely and successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to relief to correct an illegal sentence because his sentence was illegal on its face; and (2) to the extent Appellant raised claims regarding the illegal imposition of sentence or of ineffective assistance of counsel, those claims should have been raised in a timely Rule 37.1 petition. View "Swift v. State" on Justia Law