Cite as 2026 Ark. 118
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-25-494
Opinion Delivered: October 1, 2026
JAMES RHODES, JR.
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE DREW
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 22CR-93-13]
V.
HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON
STATE OF ARKANSAS III, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED.
COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice
Appellant James Rhodes, Jr., was nineteen years old when he committed the offense
of capital murder.1 He appeals from the denial of his petition to correct an illegal sentence
filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016). For reversal,
Rhodes contends that the circuit court erred by not considering scientific data supporting
the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and
finding that there is no substantial difference in the neurological brain development and
maturity of young adults aged seventeen to twenty. Rhodes argues that, as a result of this
data, his sentence of life imprisonment without parole is illegal. We affirm.
1
In 1993, Rhodes pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The sentencing order reflects that Rhodes was on probation for robbery and theft of property at the time of the murder. As a result of the probation violation, Rhodes was also sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty years’ and ten years’ imprisonment for the burglary and theft offenses.
The trial court’s decision to deny relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be
overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. McGill v. State, 2025 Ark. 66. A finding
is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on
the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. Millsap v. State, 2020 Ark. 38.
We are mindful that the plain text of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111(a)
authorizes a trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time. McGill, 2025 Ark. 66. An
illegal sentence is one that is illegal on its face. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, 682 S.W.3d
662. A sentence is illegal on its face when it is void because it is beyond the trial court’s
authority to impose and gives rise to a question of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. The
general rule is that a sentence imposed within the maximum term prescribed by law is not
illegal on its face. Id.
On appeal, Rhodes contends that the circuit court erred for the following reasons:
(1) failing to consider scientific data to the effect that there is no substantial difference in
young adults aged seventeen to twenty when it comes to neurological brain development
and maturity; (2) failing to analyze “fellow sister states[’]” decisions concerning the
neurological brain-development and maturity-level claims he made; and (3) failing to
analyze decisions of the federal courts concerning his neurological-brain-development and
maturity-level claims. Rhodes addresses two cases, People v. Taylor, ___ N.W.3d ___, 2025
WL 1085247 (Mich. Apr. 10, 2025),2 and United States v. Sepulveda, 762 F. Supp. 3d 153
2
Rhodes also referenced People v. Czarnecki, 27 N.W.3d 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 2023), which was reversed by the holding in Taylor sub nomine.
2
(D.R.I. 2025), for precedent to support his claim that a life sentence without parole for
nineteen- and twenty-year-olds violates the benefit and protections of the specialized
procedures mandated in Miller and that makes those in that age group presumptively
neurologically indistinguishable from either a “teenage juvenile offender or an eighteenyear-old offender.”3 Although Rhodes argues that article 2, section 9, of the Arkansas
Constitution mirrors Michigan’s clause prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment, which
served as the basis to support the Michigan appellate court’s findings regarding its findings
in Taylor, a claim based on a constitutional argument does not implicate the facial validity
of the judgment. Therefore, such claims are not within the purview of the illegal-sentence
statute. Mister v. State, 2022 Ark. 35, 639 S.W.3d 331; see Hogue v. State, 2026 Ark. 83, 732
S.W.3d 385.
Rhodes contends that there are developments indicating a major change in how the
law treats “emerging adults,” particularly because an “assessment of a punishment’s
proportionality occurs ‘in light of contemporary standards of decency which mark the
progress of society.’” Sepulveda, 762 F. Supp. 3d at 159 (citing Commonwealth v. Mattis, 224
N.E.3d 410 (2024) (internal citations omitted)). The United States Supreme Court in Miller
held that a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile violates the Eighth
Amendment; the Court did not prohibit a juvenile from being sentenced to life without
parole but required the sentencer to “take into account how children are different, and how
those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”
3
Rhodes’s use of the term “teenage juvenile offender” likely refers to teenagers who are categorized as “juveniles” or “youths” as opposed to teenagers who are categorized as adults, i.e., eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds.
3
Segerstrom v. State, 2024 Ark. 130, 696 S.W.3d 799 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 480); see
Grubbs v. State, 2020 Ark. 42, 592 S.W.3d 688. Again, this court has not extended its
application of Miller to offenders who were eighteen or older at the time of the homicide.
See Hogue, 2026 Ark. 83, 732 S.W.3d 385; Gibbs v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 29, 660 S.W.3d 579;
see also Benton v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 237, 602 S.W.3d 96.
Moreover, Rhodes’s sentence is firmly within the statutory range for the offense of
capital murder, and Rhodes does not argue otherwise. Rhodes was convicted of capital
murder, a Class Y felony under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101 (Supp. 1992),
punishable by death or life imprisonment without parole. Accordingly, Rhodes’s sentence
of life without parole is within the range permitted by statute and is not facially illegal.
Woodruff, 2024 Ark. 13, 682 S.W.3d 662. In light of the foregoing, we affirm the circuit
court’s order because Rhodes failed to demonstrate that his sentence is illegal.
Affirmed.
Special Justice CORY COX joins.
WEBB, J., not participating.
James Rhodes, Jr., pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4