Title: Bobby Olles v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07­744 BOBBY OLLES Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered November 1, 2007 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, CR 2006­36, CR 2006­235, HON. CHARLES EDWARD CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2006, appellant Bobby Olles entered a plea of guilty to one count of theft by receiving in CR 2006­36, and one count of theft by receiving in CR 2006­235. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 120 months’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently and was ordered to pay restitution in addition to costs and fees. The judgment filed on December 11, 2006, reflected the sentences for both criminal cases. Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16­90­111 (Supp. 2003). The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order. Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal, if it were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, or ­2­ other civil remedy, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam). An illegal sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Lovelace v. State, 301 Ark. 519, 785 S.W.2d 212 (1990). We have previously observed that a sentence is “illegal on its face” when it exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense for which the defendant was convicted. Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533, 768 S.W.2d 541 (1989). Appellant alleged in his petition in the trial court that he was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment on each of three counts of theft by receiving in CR 2006­36. He complained that he could not be convicted and sentenced on multiple criminal counts that arose from a single course of conduct. In that case, the felony information filed against appellant contained three counts of theft by receiving pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §5­36­106 (Supp. 2003). The judgment reflected that as part of appellant’s plea agreement, Counts 2 and 3 merged into Count 1, and appellant was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment on a single count of theft by receiving. Section 5­36­106(e)(1) classified the charge as a Class B felony, and the sentence for a Class B felony shall be not less than five years nor more than twenty years. Ark. Code Ann. §5­4­401(A)(3) (Repl. 1997). As the sentence in CR 2006­36 was for a single count of theft by receiving and did not exceed the statutory maximum for the stated offense, it was not illegal on its face. Fritts, supra. Appellant failed to show that the sentence in that case was illegal on its face or that he was entitled to relief under the statute. As to his second claim for relief, the judgment showed that restitution was to be paid by appellant in the amount of $18,134.98. Appellant contended in the petition that the full amount of ­3­ the restitution was imposed solely in CR 2006­235 and argued that the restitution covered the theft of items for which appellant had not been charged or convicted. However, the judgment did not indicate that the restitution was limited to CR 2006­235, as claimed by appellant. The judgment and plea statement signed by appellant prior to entry of the judgment indicated that the restitution related to all items listed in both criminal cases. Appellant had not made a showing that the amount of the restitution exceeded the value of all items in both cases, related to items not included in either criminal case, or related solely to CR 2006­235. Therefore, appellant’s claim of an illegal sentence in CR 2006­235 was not shown on the face of the judgment, and he did not demonstrate a legal or factual basis for the claim. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.