rather that the sentences were imposed illegally in violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy. See Rea v. State, 2015 Ark. 431, at 3, 474 S.W.3d 493, 496 (explaining that the purpose of the double-jeopardy clause is to protect a defendant from multiple punishments for the same offense). Double-jeopardy claims are claims that can be raised at trial and for the first time in a postconviction petition filed pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. See State v. Montague, 341 Ark. 144, 146, 14 S.W.3d 867, 868 (2000) (explaining that double-jeopardy claims must be raised at trial and are not treated as an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction that can be raised for the first time on direct appeal); see also Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33, 36, 13 S.W.3d 904, 906 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Jenkins raised a claim challenging
holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal holding that doublejeopardy claims are fundamental claims that can be raised for the first time in petitions for postconviction relief pursuant to rule 371 holding that a ground for relief not pled in a motion for postconviction relief is waived and cannot be raised on appeal holding that claims not raised in a timely postconviction motion are waived