{ "id": 1744761, "name": "Johnny WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. State", "decision_date": "1983-11-07", "docket_number": "CR 83-96", "first_page": "543", "last_page": "546", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "280 Ark. 543" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "659 S.W.2d 948" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "257 Ark. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717418 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/257/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 Ark. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1755046 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 929", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756178 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0929-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ark. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1715454 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/268/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0611-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 337, "char_count": 5278, "ocr_confidence": 0.854, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.584026374442845e-08, "percentile": 0.5259766109916061 }, "sha256": "27bba7d8295092678e889e48b7d2dce7c1aef5bb8c833314fa23a21bc5f37284", "simhash": "1:33ee4dde6e37e74a", "word_count": 876 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:47.726191+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hickman, Purtle and Dudley, JJ., dissent.", "I am authorized to say that Hickman and Dudley, JJ., join me in this dissent." ], "parties": [ "Johnny WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nPetitioner Johnny Williams was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of 20 years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction with five years suspended. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams v. State, not designated for publication (March 16, 1983). Before this trial, petitioner\u2019s probation on charges of breaking or entering and theft of property was revoked and he was sentenced to ten years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the revocation. Williams v. State, not designated for publication (March 2, 1983). The two sentences were ordered served consecutively. He now seeks permission to proceed in circuit court for postconviction relief with regard to both the revocation and the murder conviction.\nPetitioner was originally placed on three years probation on the charges of breaking or entering and theft of property. When his probation was revoked, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. He contends that it was unlawful for him to be sentenced to a term longer than the probationary period. We disagree. The present law, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2332 (Supp. 1983) which in pertinent part was also in effect at the time petitioner committed the crime for which he was placed on probation) provides that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is limited to the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence which might have originally been imposed. In petitioner\u2019s case, however, no sentence was imposed; he was simply placed on probation. The term \u201cprobation\u201d is defined in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-801 (2) (Repl. 1977) as:\n\u201cProbation\u201d or \u201cplace on probation\u201d means a procedure whereby a defendant, who pleads or is found guil ty, is released by the court without pronouncement of sentence but subject to the supervision of a probation officer, (emphasis added)\nHence, the court was free to sentence him to any term it might have imposed originally. McGee v. State, 271 Ark. 611, 609 S.W.2d 73 (1980). Since the ten-year sentence imposed could have been imposed when he was convicted, we find no error.\nWith regard to his conviction for murder, petitioner alleges that a conspiracy to conceal evidence existed among the witnesses to the shooting. He further contends that the police did not properly investigate the crime and that witnesses gave conflicting testimony. All these allegations are essentially attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence. Challenges to the evidence are a direct attack on the conviction which must be made on direct appeal. The issue is not cognizable under Rule 37. Swisher v. State, 257 Ark. 24, 514 S.W.2d 218 (1974).\nPetition denied.\nHickman, Purtle and Dudley, JJ., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." }, { "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. Petitioner entered a guilty plea on February 3, 1981, and was sentenced to three years probation. Subsequently his probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison. I think appellant correctly contends that it was unlawful for him to be sentenced to a term longer than the probationary period. I agree that sentencing is prescribed by substantive rather than procedural law.\nThe record shows that appellant entered a guilty plea and the court entered a judgment of three years to be served on probation. The majority simply ignores the fact that a judgment was entered. I have read the record. Written on a page entitled \u201cJudgment and Order of Probation\u201d is the following: \u201cEntered a plea of guilty... placed on probation for a period of three years.\u201d How can reasonable minds argue he was not sentenced? Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-2332 (Supp. 1983) which deals with probation contains the following language: \u201cThereupon the court may revoke the probation and require him to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence which might have been originally imposed.\u201d This act has not been changed since 1979. McGee v. State, 271 Ark. 611, 609 S.W.2d 73 (1980) specifically held \u201cno sentence was imposed,\u201d therefore, it is factually different from the present case. McGee tried to distinguish Culpepper v. State, 268 Ark. 263, 595 S.W.2d 220 (1980) but failed. Culpepper is still valid law and complies with this dissent and our present law. Even if we reduced this second sentence for the same crime to three years the appellant still must serve his twenty year sentence. I am of the opinion we should follow the law. This court stated in Queen v. State, 271 Ark. 929, 612 S.W.2d 95 (1981): \u201cHere, the plea was accepted and the term of probation was five years. Consequently, a later suspended sentence for ten years was improper.\u201d Also, see Easley v. State, 274 Ark. 215, 623 S.W.2d 189 (1981), to the same effect.\nTherefore, under the statutes in effect in 1980, the trial court could not sentence petitioner to more than the term imposed, three years. Since petitioner\u2019s sentence of 10 years was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, I would modify the sentence in accordance with A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.1 (c) to a term of three years.\nI am authorized to say that Hickman and Dudley, JJ., join me in this dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Petitioner, pro se.", "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Johnny WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 83-96\n659 S.W.2d 948\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 7, 1983\nPetitioner, pro se.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Michael E. Wheeler, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent." }, "file_name": "0543-01", "first_page_order": 579, "last_page_order": 582 }