Willie Ray Porchia v. State of Arkansas

── Willie Ray Porchia v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 280 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-24-852 WILLIE RAY PORCHIA Opinion Delivered: May 6, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 52CR-10-162] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RYAN PHILLIPS, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge Appellant Willie Ray Porchia appeals from the denial of his pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016). On appeal, he argues that the circuit court erred in rejecting his challenge to the legality of his sentencing enhancements pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64- 411(a)(8) (Supp. 2009) for committing four drug offenses within one thousand feet of a church. Specifically, he argues that the State was required to prove a culpable mental state for the enhancements and failed to do so. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of Porchia’s petition. I. Background Facts and Procedural History On June 20, 2013, Porchia was convicted by a Ouachita County jury of four counts of delivery of a controlled substance (crack cocaine) committed in February and March 2010. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Pursuant to section 5-64-411, each of the four terms was extended by ten years because the offenses were committed within one thousand feet of a church. Porchia filed a direct appeal in this court, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence photographs that were not properly authenticated and that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the enhanced portions of the sentences were not subject to parole eligibility. This court held that neither argument was preserved for appeal, and it affirmed his convictions and sentences. Porchia v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 662, at 3. Porchia filed his petition to correct the illegal sentence pursuant to section 16-90-111 on August 1, 2022. He argued that the proximity enhancement in section 5-64-411 required proof of a culpable mental state, which the State failed to establish. He also made a passing argument that the circuit court failed to instruct the jury that the sentencing provisions on early release and transfer were unavailable for the sentencing enhancements, and he asserted what could be construed as a challenge to the circuit court’s decision to run the enhancements consecutively to his drug-delivery sentences. The circuit court denied Porchia’s petition on April 17, 2024, finding that most of his petition was outside the scope of section 16-90-111 because his arguments should have been raised at trial and on direct appeal. The circuit court further found that “[t]he only conceivable argument that relates to A.C.A. § 16-90-111 involves the claim that the enhancements should not be run consecutively[.]” The circuit court found that argument meritless because it was authorized 2 by statute to run them consecutively. Porchia filed a timely notice of appeal from the circuit court’s order denying his petition, and this appeal followed. II. Standard of Review and Applicable Law The circuit court’s denial of relief pursuant to section 16-90-111 will not be overturned unless that decision is clearly erroneous. Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13, at 2, 682 S.W.3d 662, 664. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although