{
  "id": 1886837,
  "name": "Thomas DELPH v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Delph v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-12-04",
  "docket_number": "CR 89-107",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "300 Ark. 492"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "780 S.W.2d 527"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "720 S.W.2d 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1873731,
        6650366
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0537-01",
        "/ark-app/19/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873731,
        1873669
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0537-01",
        "/ark/290/0537-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889854
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-404",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-90-111",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.916,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.392060407398495e-07,
      "percentile": 0.642991734267133
    },
    "sha256": "5a702ca3be023c7cd6b1a032f2c03b95b44c1a20347ab3c2bb953b6a5235bf5c",
    "simhash": "1:2380b92c744cf3f9",
    "word_count": 715
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:14:13.062447+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas DELPH v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nOn December 11,1986, the appellant, Thomas Delph, was charged by information with two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property, and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Four days later, Delph was charged by information with one count of aggravated robbery and habitual offender status.\nDelph was committed to the Arkansas State Hospital on January 15, 1987, for psychiatric treatment because it was determined that he was mentally ill and unable to proceed in aid of his defense. Delph was released from the Arkansas State Hospital on January 26, 1988,, and transferred to the Pulaski County Jail. On February 8, 1988, Delph entered into a negotiated plea agreement; he was subsequently convicted on February 9, 1988, of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property, and received concurrent sentences of ten years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction for each offense. Delph received 75 days for jail time credit.\nAlmost a year later, on February 2, 1989, Delph filed, for both of his underlying cases, a \u201cmotion for credit for time spent in custody.\u201d He claimed that he was entitled to an additional 376 days of jail time credit for the time he spent in the Arkansas State Hospital. The trial court denied the motion on February 9,1989, and found that Delph had agreed at the time of the plea agreement that he was entitled only to 75 days jail time credit. The trial court also found that he had apparently waived any further credit and that he was being held at the time for other charges in other courts. The February 9,1989, order was filed in both cases.\nA second order was filed in both cases on April 3, 1989, which found that the trial court lost \u201cjurisdiction after one hundred twenty (120) days under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-90-111 [(Supp. 1989)]\u201d.\nDelph contends that the trial court erred in its denial of his \u201cmotion for credit for additional time spent in custody\u201d while awaiting trial and relies solely on Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-404 (1987) in support of his contention.\nSection 5-4-404 provides that \u201c[i]f a defendant is held in custody for conduct that results in a sentence to imprisonment, the court shall credit the time spent in custody against the sentence.\u201d\nWe need not address the merits of Delph\u2019s argument because the trial court was correct in denying his motion on the basis of section 16-90-111, which provides as follows:\n(a) Any circuit court, upon receipt of petition by the aggrieved party for relief and after the notice of the relief has been served on the prosecuting attorney, may correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time provided in this section for the reduction of sentence.\n(b) (1) The court may reduce a sentence within one hundred twenty (120) days after the sentence is imposed\nWe have held that an \u201cillegal sentence\u201d means a sentence illegal on its face; where a defendant seeks relief from a sentence that is legal on its face, he must petition the court within 120 days of sentencing. Fritts v. State, 298 Ark. 533, 768 S.W.2d 541 (1989); Abdullah v. State, 290 Ark. 537, 720 S.W.2d 313 (1986).\nIn this case, Delph entered into a plea agreement in which he pled guilty to three of the offenses with which he was charged. In return, the remaining charges were dropped. Delph was given concurrent ten year sentences with 75 days jail time credit. We note, in addition, that the sentences given Delph were clearly within the maximum prescribed by law and are not illegal on their face.\nDelph\u2019s argument, at most, is that his sentences were imposed in an illegal manner. Delph filed his \u201cmotion for credit\u201d 358 days after the imposition of his sentence. Obviously, the trial court was correct in denying the motion, as it was not filed in conformance with the 120 day filing requirement.\nWe affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, Pro Se.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas DELPH v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 89-107\n780 S.W.2d 527\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 4, 1989\nAppellant, Pro Se.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 520,
  "last_page_order": 522
}