[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
FROM THE NEVADA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 50CR-93-27], HON.
RANDY WRIGHT, JUDGE
Wesley, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen.,
F. WYNNE, Associate Justice
Appellant Eugene Wesley appeals the denial by the trial court
of his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence under
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl.
2016). We affirm the trial court order
because Wesley did not establish that the sentence being
challenged was an illegal sentence and because it was not
timely filed. Accordingly, the trial court was not wrong to
deny relief under the statute. Also, it appears that the
trial court may have treated the petition as one filed under
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1
(2018). Under Rule
37.2(b), the petition was untimely filed and it was an
unauthorized successive petition subject to dismissal on that
basis, and the trial court did not err in denying it pursuant
to the Rule.
1993, Wesley was found guilty by a jury of aggravated
robbery, kidnapping, and theft of property. Sentences were
imposed of life, twenty years, and ten years, respectively.
The kidnapping sentence was ordered to be served
consecutively to the life sentence for aggravated robbery. We
affirmed. Wesley v. State, 318 Ark. 83, 883 S.W.2d
478 (1994). Evidence adduced at trial reflected that Wesley
entered a store in 1993, held a knife to a store employee’s
throat, took money from the cash register, and forced the
employee to leave with him in her vehicle. The employee, who
was eventually released, identified Wesley as the perpetrator
of the aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft of property.
of Review Under Section 16-90-111 and
trial court’s decision to deny relief under section 16-90-111
will not be overturned unless that decision is clearly
erroneous. Jackson v. State,2018 Ark. 291, 558
S.W.3d 383. Likewise, a decision on a petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 will not be
reversed unless the trial court’s ruling is clearly
erroneous. Wood v. State,2015 Ark. 477, 478 S.W.3d
194. With respect to orders on both section 16-90-111 and
Rule 37.1 petitions, 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
committed. See e.g.Swift v. State, 2018
Ark. 74, 540 S.W.3d 288 (The trial court’s decision to deny
relief under section 16-90-111 ...