Jones v. Hobbs

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Charles Edward Jones’s appeal from the denial of his amended habeas corpus petition. The court held that Jones’s claims concerning sufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, witness credibility, and speedy trial were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding and did not establish a jurisdictional or facial-invalidity basis for relief. His motion to duplicate his brief at state expense was therefore moot.

Holdings

1. A habeas petitioner who does not proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 on an actual-innocence claim must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the trial court's lack of jurisdiction and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that the petitioner is illegally detained.
2. The sufficiency of the evidence is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding, and attacks on the credibility of trial witnesses do not provide grounds for habeas relief.
3. An allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a ground for an Arkansas writ of habeas corpus and should instead be raised in a timely petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1.
4. A claim alleging denial of a speedy trial is not within the purview of a habeas proceeding.
5. An appeal from the denial of a habeas petition will be dismissed when it is clear that the petitioner did not allege grounds on which the writ could be granted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jones's amended habeas petition alleged a cognizable basis for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
2. Whether allegations concerning sufficiency of the evidence, witness credibility, ineffective assistance of counsel, and speedy-trial violations can support Arkansas habeas relief.
3. Whether Jones's motion to duplicate his brief at state expense remained viable after dismissal of the appeal.

Disposition

dismissed