FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NOS. 23CR-12-765,
23CR-13-685, 23CR-16-701 & 23CR-17-502], HONORABLE H.G.
Law PLC, Bentonville, by: Matthew A. Kezhaya, for appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Asst Atty Gen., for
B. SWITZER, Judge
November 13, 2018, the Faulkner County Circuit Court held a
hearing on the States petitions to revoke Dillon
Weatherfords probation in four underlying cases. The court
granted the petitions and sentenced Dillon to the following
terms in the Arkansas Department of Correction: (1) 240
months in case No. 23CR-12-765 (first-degree domestic
battery); (2) 120 months in case No. 23CR-13-865 (failure to
appear); (3) 72 months in case No. 23CR-16-701 (third-degree
domestic battery); and (4) 60 months in case No. 23CR-17-502
(third-degree domestic battery). He was given no credit for
the time he spent in jail awaiting sentencing. For his sole
point on appeal, Dillon contends that the circuit court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to sentence him to terms
greater than those provided by statute, which resulted from
the courts failure to give him credit for time served.
Dillons arguments were not properly preserved for appellate
review, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
characterizes his point on appeal as one involving an illegal
sentence, which is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction
and can be raised for the first time on appeal. There is a
difference, however, between an illegal sentence and a
sentence imposed in an illegal manner. As our supreme court
explained in Cooley v. State, 322 Ark. 348, 350-51,
909 S.W.2d 312, 313 (1995):
First, an illegal sentence is one that is illegal on its
face. When the sentence given is within the maximum
prescribed by law, as was appellants sentence, it is not
illegal on its face. Second, regardless of whether appellant
had an opportunity to review the judgment before it was
filed, he certainly had an opportunity to review it after it
was filed and seek correction of the judgment below pursuant
to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37 since no appeal was pending.
This court has previously decided that a request for jail
time credit is a request for modification of a sentence
imposed in an illegal manner. A claim that a sentence was
imposed in an illegal manner must be raised in a petition
filed with the circuit court under Rule 37. No such petition
was filed in this case.
Because modification of the sentence is the only issue raised
on appeal, and because both parties agree as to the
correction of the sentence, we are somewhat inclined to
modify the judgment and affirm as modified. However, neither
Abbott nor Walters considered Rule 37 and
its application or effect. Rule 37 requires that the
merits of the modification of the sentence be determined by
the circuit court. Therefore, we feel constrained to dismiss
the appeal rather than modify the judgment.
(Emphasis added & citations omitted.)
Dillon characterizes his sentence as illegal because the
circuit courts failure to award jail-time credit will
require him to serve more than the maximum amount of time
designated in the statutes for his offenses. However,