Opinion ID: 6337986
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Smith’s Life-Without-Parole Sentence

Text: Smith next argues that his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his capital-murder conviction was illegal because Arkansas law does not allow a juvenile to be sentenced to life without parole for any homicide offense. He argues that we should remand to the circuit court for his sentence to be modified. 2 On July 16, when the search warrant was issued, the stolen CR-V had not yet been found. It was found the following day. 12 Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(c)(1)(B) (Supp. 2017 reprint) provides, Capital murder is punishable as follows: ... (B) If the defendant was younger than eighteen (18) years of age at the time he or she committed the capital murder, life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum of thirty (30) years’ imprisonment. Here, it is undisputed that Smith was sixteen years old at the time of the capital murder. Thus, he was ineligible for a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The State contends that the life-without-parole notation on Smith’s sentencing order appears to be a clerical error because all parties below agreed that Smith would be eligible for parole on his capital-murder conviction after thirty years. When there is a discrepancy between the sentencing order and the pronouncement of sentence, the sentencing order controls. Martinez v. State, 2019 Ark. 85, at 2, 569 S.W.3d 333, 335. But clerical errors do not prevent enforcement of a judgment, and a circuit court can enter an order nunc pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors in a judgment. Id., 569 S.W.3d at 335. We therefore remand and instruct the circuit court to correct the sentencing order so that it accurately reflects that Smith was sentenced to “Life” for capital murder, which in his case means that he is eligible for parole after thirty years. Additionally, Smith argues that he is “entitled to parole eligibility at thirty years across the board on all of his offenses” and asks that, on remand, his sentencing order “be corrected accordingly.” Smith does not argue that his sentences for kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and theft were illegal. His challenge is solely to parole eligibility. Parole eligibility falls clearly within the domain of the executive branch and specifically the Arkansas Division of Correction, as fixed by 13 statute. Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. 212, at 5. Thus, on the basis of this precedent, we lack jurisdiction to instruct the circuit court to apply specific parole statutes to Smith’s kidnapping, aggravatedrobbery, and capital-murder convictions.