{
  "id": 1879956,
  "name": "L.V. BLAKELY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blakely v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-07-02",
  "docket_number": "CR 84-82",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "283 Ark. 138"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "671 S.W.2d 183"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 S.Ct. 2039",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "case_ids": [
        6204502
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/466/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668765
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174888
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709241
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675894
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 945",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664916
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0945-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 954",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668953
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0954-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "550 S.W.2d 424",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678954
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 Ark. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1748392
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/278/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 811",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723013
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0811-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "283 Ark. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1880004
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 U.S. 711",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1772134
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0711-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 449,
    "char_count": 6630,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.855,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.924182260346764e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5361947742899297
    },
    "sha256": "2e9c334fea96e29e74bc69a3dbd53acbae76e3e73778749ee66d29dbd823817e",
    "simhash": "1:93d2807265a8d7ce",
    "word_count": 1113
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:00:41.772495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Adkisson, C.J., Purtle and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.",
      "Adkisson, C.J., and Hollingsworth, J., join in this dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "L.V. BLAKELY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nPetitioner L. V. Blakely pleaded guilty in 1981 to second degree forgery. He was fined $250 and given a five year suspended sentence. The suspended sentence was revoked in 1982 and petitioner was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fined $1,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Blakely v. State, CACR 83-64 (October 26, 1983). He now seeks permission to proceed in circuit court for postconviction relief pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.\nPetitioner contends that the trial court erred when it imposed a sentence of ten years and a $1,000 fine upon revocation of his suspended sentence because he was led to believe that the sentence upon revocation would be equal to the fine and term of suspended sentence imposed when he pleaded guilty. The legality of petitioner\u2019s sentence was raised on appeal. Since the question was decided adversely to him, he cannot reargue it under Rule 37. Neal v. State, 270 Ark. 442, 605 S.W.2d 421 (1980). He also raises in the petition the admissibility of his confession and the question of whether it was proper for the state to bring up his prior conviction, but these issues too were addressed on appeal and are also not cognizable in a petition for postconviction relief.\nPetitioner alleges as error that (1) he was deprived of a fair proceeding by the \u201crush to judgment;\u201d (2) he had made restitution and paid the $250 fine, which is probably an attack on the legality of the sentence after revocation; (3) there was insufficient evidence to revoke the suspended sentence; (4) a statement he made to a police officer should have been suppressed; (5) an unspecified exhibit was wrongfully admitted into evidence; (6) the prosecutor made the prejudicial remark that petitioner was going to prison as a pro; and (7) a witness\u2019s testimony was incompetent. These issues could have been raised in the trial court and on appeal. Matters not raised in accordance with the controlling rules of procedure are waived, unless they present questions of such fundamental nature that the judgment is rendered void. Swindler v. State, 272 Ark. 340, 617 S.W.2d 1 (1981). As none of the allegations made by petitioner is sufficient to render the judgment in his case void, the issues have been waived.\nPetitioner makes the general statements that his sentence was imposed in violation of the constitution and laws of the United States and this State and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, but he does not offer any factual support for the assertions. Allegations without factual basis do not justify an evidentiary hearing. Smith v. State, 264 Ark. 329, 571 S.W.2d 591 (1978).\nPetitioner contends finally that his plea of guilty was \u201cunlawfully induced or not voluntarily made without complete understanding of the nature of the charge, and consequences of plea.\u201d It is not clear whether petitioner is claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when he entered his plea. If so, the burden rests on him to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Cronic, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 2039 (1984). Petitioner fails to meet this burden because he does not explain how counsel erred. A violation of the right to effective counsel can be shown only by pointing to specific errors by counsel. Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984). Merely stating without substantiation that the plea was unl\u00e1wfully induced and involuntary does not demonstrate that counsel was ineffective or that the plea was otherwise invalid.\nPetition denied.\nAdkisson, C.J., Purtle and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. On June 2, 1981, appellant pled guilty to a charge of second degree forgery. He was sentenced to five years and fined the sum of $250. On November 12,1982, the court revoked the suspended sentence and imposed a ten year sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction October 26, 1983. The matter is before us upon the appellant\u2019s application to proceed in the trial court pursuant to Rule 37.\nIt is elementary that a person may not be required to \u201crun the gauntlet\u201d more than once. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969). In the present case the trial court\u2019s judgment stated in part: \u201c[T]he defendant has been convicted upon his plea of guilty. . . . It is adjudged that the defendan t is guil ty as chaged and convicted. \u2019' The j udgmen t recites that the court asked the defendant if he had anything to say before the sentence was pronounced. The court found no reason to not pronounce sentence.\nThe Court should have revoked only the remaining portion of the five year sentence. Cumulative and overlapping sentences were considered by this court in Deaton v. State, 283 Ark. 79, 671 S.W.2d 175 (1984). In Deaton we stated: \u201cThe trial court should have revoked only the fixed term remaining on the suspended sentence.\u201d After a sentence is imposed the trial court cannot later impose a greater sentence than the one first put into operation. Culpepper v. State, 268 Ark. 263, 595 S.W.2d 220(1980); Wotfe v. State, 266 Ark. 811, 586 S.W.2d 4 (Ark. App. 1979). Once a valid sentence is put into execution the trial court is without authority to amend or revise it. Hunter v. State, 278 Ark. 428, 645 S.W.2d 954 (1983).\nA defendant cannot be sentenced except by authorization of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-803. Neither section 803 noi any exceptions thereto authorize a trial court to impose a second sentence after a valid sentence is put into execution. Therefore, the second sentence of ten years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine cannot replace the five year sentence and $250 fine which had already been put into execution. Shipman v. State, 261 Ark. 559, 550 S.W.2d 424 (1977) The very purpose of Rule 37 is to allow attacks on the sentence collaterally on such matters as constitutionality, jurisdiction and excess sentences. Rawls v. State, 264 Ark. 954, 581 S.W.2d 311 (1979). A trial court lacks jurisdiction and authority to change a sentence after appellate review. Rogers v. State, 265 Ark. 945, 582 S.W.2d 7 (1979); Smith v. State, 262 Ark. 239, 555 S.W.2d 569 (1977). Rule 37.1(c) authorizes a colleratal attack on the ground \u201cthat the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law. . .\u201d\nI would allow petitioner to proceed in the trial court with his Rule 37 request for vacation of the second sentence.\nAdkisson, C.J., and Hollingsworth, J., join in this dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Petitioner, pro se.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Velda West Vanderbilt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L.V. BLAKELY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 84-82\n671 S.W.2d 183\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 2, 1984\nPetitioner, pro se.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Velda West Vanderbilt, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 166,
  "last_page_order": 170
}