Opinion ID: 3163612
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Facially Invalid Order

Text: 6 Cite as 2015 Ark. 477 For his fourth claim, Wood asserts that the circuit court erred in denying Wood’s Rule 37.1 petition because the sentencing order is facially invalid because the date on the order is incorrect, thus rendering the order facially invalid. Wood contends that the error in the date evidences that his counsel entered a plea agreement without his knowledge, and the sentencing order is facially flawed. The record demonstrates that the sentencing order indicates a date of July 2, 2013, which was the original date scheduled for the pretrial hearings. The circuit court’s order explained that on that date, the presiding judge, Judge Ramey, was in the hospital. Judge Tom Cooper sat as a special judge and continued the matter until July 16, 2013. However, as was customary, the sentencing order and other plea documents were drafted in anticipation of the July 2, 2013 hearing. Then on July 16, 2013, Judge Ramey accepted Wood’s plea. Judge Ramey utilized the previously prepared documents, indicating the July 2, 2013 date. Based on these facts and our review of the record, the date error was a merely clerical and did not affect the validity of the order. Additionally, cognizable claims are limited to those asserting that his plea was not entered intelligently and voluntarily upon advice of competent counsel. See Polivka, 2010 Ark. 152, 362 S.W.3d 918; Camacho, 2011 Ark. 235, 2. Instead, Wood asserts that his counsel entered into a plea without his knowledge on July 2, 2013, even though his signature appears on the plea documents. Thus, in his petition Wood failed to claim that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, petitioner would not have so pleaded and would have insisted on going to trial. Buchheit v. Norris, 339 Ark. 481, 483, 6 S.W.3d 109, 111 (1999). 7 Cite as 2015 Ark. 477