Tate v. State

2013 Ark. 380 (2013) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 3, 2013 · No. CV-11-670

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of Kevin D. Tate’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Tate argued that the trial court improperly ordered consecutive sentences for first-degree murder and a firearm enhancement and that a hearing was required. The court held that he failed to demonstrate that the judgment was facially invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 3, 2013
Docket number
CV-11-670
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Lee County Circuit Court's denial of a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Standard of review
A habeas-corpus petition is proper only when the judgment of conviction is facially invalid or the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing one of those grounds; otherwise, the writ will not issue.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Kevin D. Tate v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

habeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefsentencingcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

Habeas corpusPost-conviction reliefCriminal procedureSentencingAppellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Tate demonstrated that his judgment and commitment order was facially invalid or that the Garland County Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, so as to warrant habeas relief.
  2. Whether the trial court improperly ordered the firearm-enhancement sentence to run consecutively and whether a hearing was required on that issue.

Holdings

  1. Tate was not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to demonstrate that the judgment was facially invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
  2. The consecutive firearm-enhancement sentence did not demonstrate that Tate's judgment was facially invalid or otherwise provide a basis for habeas relief.
  3. The circuit court was not required to hold a hearing because Tate's sentencing claim did not state a ground for issuance of a habeas writ.

Key quotations

A writ of habeas corpus is proper only when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause.
A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his or her case.

Factual background

Tate was convicted by a jury in 2005 of first-degree murder arising from the shooting death of his girlfriend. He received a 480-month sentence and an additional 180-month firearm enhancement under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-120, to be served consecutively. In his habeas petition, Tate challenged the consecutive nature of the sentences and argued that a hearing should have been held on that issue.

Procedural history

In 2005, Tate was convicted of first-degree murder in the Garland County Circuit Court and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment, plus a consecutive 180-month firearm enhancement. In 2011, while incarcerated in Lee County, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lee County Circuit Court. That court denied the petition, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…