Arnett v. Hobbs

2014 Ark. 540 (2014) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 18, 2014 · No. CV-14-117

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the dismissal of Michael Brian Arnett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Arnett failed to show that he was incarcerated pursuant to the challenged 2010 misdemeanor convictions, and explained that habeas corpus was not a substitute for a timely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
December 18, 2014
Docket number
CV-14-117
Procedural posture
Pro se appeal from the Lincoln County Circuit Court's dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Standard of review
A circuit court's denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court's findings are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although evidence supports it, the appellate court is left after reviewing the entire evidence with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Michael Brian Arnett v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefhabeas corpuspost-conviction reliefappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

habeas corpusstate post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arnett established a basis for habeas relief by showing that he was in custody pursuant to the challenged 2010 misdemeanor judgments.
  2. Whether a habeas petition could serve as a substitute for a timely petition for post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1.

Holdings

  1. Arnett was not entitled to habeas relief because he did not demonstrate that he was in custody pursuant to the 2010 misdemeanor judgments he challenged.
  2. A habeas petition is not a substitute for a timely petition for post-conviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 when the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of a judgment but does not establish a habeas basis for release.

Key quotations

A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. (2)
As appellant did not demonstrate that he was in custody pursuant to the 2010 misdemeanor judgments, he did not establish a ground for a writ of habeas corpus to effect his release from custody. (3)

Factual background

Arnett was incarcerated under a 2009 judgment convicting him of second-degree murder and abuse of a corpse, for which he received an aggregate sentence of 360 months' imprisonment; that judgment was affirmed in 2010. His 2013 habeas petition challenged two misdemeanor convictions entered in 2010 in Clark County, carrying an aggregate twelve-month county-jail sentence. Arnett did not allege, and the circuit court found, that he was presently incarcerated in Lincoln County because of the misdemeanor judgments.

Procedural history

Arnett filed a pro se habeas petition in 2013 in the circuit court of the county where he was incarcerated. The petition challenged two 2010 misdemeanor convictions from the Clark County Circuit Court. The Lincoln County Circuit Court dismissed the petition, concluding that Arnett was not in custody on those judgments and that the claims should have been raised through a timely petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…