Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (2026)
Correction or reduction of sentence
- 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.
-
- The circuit court may reduce a sentence within ninety (90) days after the sentence is imposed or within sixty (60) days after receipt by the circuit court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal.
- The circuit court may also reduce a sentence upon revocation of probation as provided by law.
History. Acts 1983, No. 431, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 43-2314; Acts 1987, No. 550, § 1; 1999, No. 578, § 1.
Publisher's Notes. This section was declared superseded by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) in Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994). However, in Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304, 5 S.W.3d 41 (1999), the Supreme Court cited Black's Law Dictionary 1220 (7th ed. 1999) and held that when dealing with a motion to modify a condition contained in a judgment of probation under subsection (b) of this section rather than a petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 for postconviction relief following imprisonment, a trial court had the authority to modify an illegal condition of probation under subsection (a) of this section because the defendant was on probation and therefore by definition not in custody.
By per curiam order dated December 19, 1994, the Supreme Court provided:
“This court frequently acts on motions filed in the course of appeals of orders denying post-conviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Criminal Procedure Rule 37, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1991), statutes which govern the issuance of writs of habeas corpus and mandamus as well as legal remedies such as error coram nobis proceedings and others. As there is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure for a motion for reconsideration to be filed after this court has denied a motion which stems from a post-conviction matter, such motions will no longer be filed.”
Case Notes
Applicability.
Petitioner's allegations of mere trial error were not within the purview of this section, and thus, petitioner's allegations that the sentences were imposed without proper hearings or forms were not cognizable. Lukach v. State, 2017 Ark. 128, 516 S.W.3d 711 (2017).
Appeal Dismissed.
Defendant's appeal of the denial of defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was dismissed because the sentence defendant contested had been vacated and remanded to the trial court, which resentenced defendant, rendering the appeal moot. Glaze v. State, 2013 Ark. 141 (2013).
Defendant's appeal of the denial of defendant's petition to correct an illegal sentence was dismissed because defendant could not prevail, as, (1) to the extent defendant's claims were cognizable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, defendant's request for relief was properly treated as a petition under Rule 37.1 and was subject to the time limitations contained in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), which defendant did not satisfy after having pled guilty, and, (2) to the extent defendant's claims were not cognizable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, the claims alleged no error required to support a claim of an illegal sentence, as defendant did not show defendant's sentences were outside the statutory range, and defendant's petition was not timely filed under this section. Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. 189 (2013).
Considered as a Petition for Postconviction Relief.
Where defendant requested relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant's motion for a sentence reduction under this section should have been considered by the trial court as a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(a). Gonder v. State, 2011 Ark. 248, 382 S.W.3d 674 (2011).
Inmate's appeal of the denial of the inmate's petition to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to this section, was dismissed because (1) Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(b) provided that all postconviction relief grounds cognizable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 had to be raised in a Rule 37.1 petition filed within 90 days of the date of judgment when a defendant pled guilty, even though this section permitted a trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time, as the statute was superseded to the extent the statute conflicted with the Rule's time limits, (2) the petition was filed over six years after judgment was entered, (3) the time limits in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2 were jurisdictional, denying a trial court jurisdiction if the time limits were not met, and, on appeal, a reviewing court, and (4) the inmate's sentence was within the prescribed statutory ranges in §§ 5-4-501(b)(2)(A) and 5-4-401(b)(1). Redus v. State, 2013 Ark. 9 (2013).
Supreme Court did not have to defer to the trial court to make the determination that defendant's sentence was illegal because whether the judgment was facially illegal was a matter of law, and it was not a question of fact best resolved through the trial court's determination. Hallman v. State, 2018 Ark. 336, 561 S.W.3d 305 (2018).
Sentence Not Facially Illegal.
Juvenile did not demonstrate that his two consecutive life sentences were illegal under this section where he had been convicted of two Class Y felonies under § 5-4-401(a)(1), which were punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years nor more than 40 years, or life, and thus, the sentences were within the allowed statutory range. Bell v. State, 2015 Ark. 370 (2015), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 136 S. Ct. 2485, 195 L. Ed. 2d 826 (2016).
Trial court did not err in denying relief under this section where allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, and constitutional error could not establish that the sentence was illegal on its face. Leach v. State, 2017 Ark. 176, 518 S.W.3d 670 (2017).
Circuit court did not clearly err in denying the prisoner relief under this section where his claim that the judge acted in excess of his authority was not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Lukach v. State, 2018 Ark. 208, 548 S.W.3d 810 (2018).
Because defendant expressly waived presentation of proof as to both charges and the enhancement, the circuit court's denial of his petition to correct an illegal sentence was not clearly erroneous; the circuit court had found that defendant entered a negotiated plea of nolo contendere to false imprisonment and manslaughter, pleaded to the manslaughter charge as a habitual offender, and waived the presentation of proof and evidence as to the charges to which he was eventually sentenced as well as the enhancement of the charges. Johnson v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 68, 571 S.W.3d 519 (2019).
Sentence Valid.
District court did not impose an illegal sentence on defendant after revoking her probation where the sentence of 10-years' imprisonment and 10-years' suspended imposition of sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum under § 5-4-401(a)(3). Turman v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 383, 467 S.W.3d 181 (2015).
Untimely Petition.
Where appellant entered a guilty plea to multiple felony offenses and received an aggregate sentence of 720 months in prison, the trial court did not err by denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence because he did not file it within the 90-day time limit required by subdivision (b)(1) of this section. Purifoy v. State, 2013 Ark. 26 (2013).
Trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion seeking waiver of 70 percent requirement of former § 16-93-611 (repealed 2011, see now § 16-93-618(c)) because whether treated as an action under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 or former § 16-90-111(b) (amended 1999), it was not timely filed. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. 526, 452 S.W.3d 87 (2014).
Cited: State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007); Robertson v. State, 2010 Ark. 300, 367 S.W.3d 538 (2010); Douglas v. State, 2014 Ark. 488 (2014).