{
  "id": 1675833,
  "name": "Leon STEVENS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stevens v. State",
  "decision_date": "1977-09-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 77-91",
  "first_page": "216",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 216"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "555 S.W.2d 229"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "256 Ark. 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724106
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/256/0690-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 3723,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.874,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.224987593538206e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8673455479450732
    },
    "sha256": "b8c49ff9c8a6d929e61a7c4a1605cd1f73bd23d7955d78ddfe631fa89655ce91",
    "simhash": "1:037c90a67f0f05d1",
    "word_count": 611
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Hickman, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Leon STEVENS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Elsijane T. Roy, Justice.\nAppellant Leon Stevens pled guilty to burglary and grand larceny, whereupon the trial court sentenced him to eleven years on each charge with the sentences to run concurrently.\nSubsequently appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial judge, after reviewing the record, denied the motion without a hearing. From the denial of the motion without a hearing appellant brings this appeal.\nRules of Crim. Proc., Rule 37.3 (a) (1976) provides:\nIf the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the trial court shall make written findings to that effect, specifying any parts of the files or records that are relied upon to sustain the court\u2019s findings.\nThe court found no merit in the petition and made written findings as required by Rule 37.3 (a).\nThe post-conviction petition essentially alleges that appellant\u2019s plea of guilty was not voluntarily or knowingly made, that he was deceived by a plea bargain arrangement and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.\nAppellant claims the two concurrent eleven-year sentences affected the sentence from which he was on parole. The record does not disclose how the old sentence was allegedly affected. However, prior to accepting the pleas of guilty the trial judge, with appellant\u2019s appointed attorney present, made the following statement:\nBut this will be an eleven year sentence. And I do not know what effect that this parole thing might or might not have upon your sentence. I don\u2019t want it to be longer than that, but I don\u2019t really know what effect it will have on you. I want you to understand that. Do you understand what effect the sentence of this nature will have?\nAppellant replied, \u201cWell, yes, sir, from previous experience of being down there.\u201d\nThe record further reflects that the commitment to the Arkansas Department of Correction issued by the trial court provides \u201cthat this eleven (11) year sentence be concurrent with and not in addition to the revoked parole time the defendant has to serve on the revocation of the defendant\u2019s parole on a sentence from the Sebastian Circuit Court.\u201d\nThere is no showing of deception here since the trial judge imposed the concurrent eleven-year sentences as expected and frankly advised appellant he did not know how appellant\u2019s parole would be affected by these sentences. The exclusive jurisdiction of custody, control, supervision, etc. of all persons in the penitentiary is vested with the Arkansas Department of Correction. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 46-103 (Supp. 1975) and Charles v. State, 256 Ark. 690, 510 S.W. 2d 68 (1974). The trial court could not intervene in the administration of prison affairs.\nPrior to accepting appellant\u2019s pleas of guilty, the trial judge informed him of the charges, the specific acts involved, the range of possible sentences, the right to jury trial and the right to counsel without charge if he could not afford one, if he desired a trial. He also was informed of the specific sentences the court would impose.\nThe trial court asked appellant if anyone was forcing him to plead guilty, and appellant answered \u201cno.\u201d We find that the record here establishes the trial court properly accepted appellant\u2019s guilty pleas. Consequently no error is found in denial of an evidentiary hearing under these circumstances.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Hickman, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Elsijane T. Roy, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert C. Marquette, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leon STEVENS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 77-91\n555 S.W. 2d 229\nOpinion delivered September 19, 1977\n(Division I)\nRobert C. Marquette, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0216-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 251
}