Allen v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 70

David Lee Allen was convicted of aggravated robbery in 1981, retried twice, and received a life sentence plus a concurrent six-year term; prior appeals produced a reversal (277 Ark. 380, 641 S.W.2d 710) and an affirmance (281 Ark. 1, 660 S.W.2d 922).
In March 2015 Allen filed a pro se habeas-corpus petition in Lee County challenging his conviction and sentence; the circuit court dismissed the petition on the pleadings for failure to establish cause.
Allen appealed the dismissal and moved for clarification/reconsideration; the circuit court issued a supplemental order reiterating denial for failure to state a basis for habeas relief.
Allen’s habeas claims alleged ineffective assistance for advising him to reject a plea and for failing to present mitigating evidence, an Eighth/Equal Protection challenge relying on Graham v. Florida, and Batson-style challenges to peremptory strikes.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded these claims are not cognizable in habeas (IAC claims and matters properly raised on direct appeal), Graham was inapplicable because Allen was not a juvenile at the time of the offense, and the judgment-and-commitment order was not facially invalid.
Because Allen could not prevail on appeal, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the motion to file a belated brief as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief is available for appellate/trial errors (IAC)	Allen: trial counsel was ineffective for rejecting plea advice and not presenting mitigation	State: such claims are not cognizable in habeas and belong on direct appeal/postconviction relief	Denied — IAC claims are not proper in habeas; petitioner failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction
Whether Graham v. Florida invalidates life without parole for a 21‑year‑old	Allen: his diminished culpability at 21 should bar life sentence like juveniles	State: Graham applies only to offenders under 18 at time of offense	Denied — Graham inapplicable because Allen was not a juvenile; no facial invalidity shown
Whether peremptory strikes (Batson-type) invalidate the judgment	Allen: counsel and State struck jurors on race, denying impartial jury	State: such claims do not render the judgment facially invalid and are not for habeas relief	Denied — these issues could have been/should have been raised on direct appeal; not grounds for habeas
Whether the judgment-and-commitment is facially illegal (exceeds statutory maximum)	Allen: implied challenge to sentence severity	State: sentence within statutory limits; not illegal on its face	Denied — sentence within statutory limits; judgment not void on its face

Allen v. State, 277 Ark. 380, 641 S.W.2d 710 (1982) (prior reversal and remand of Allen’s conviction)
Allen v. State, 281 Ark. 1, 660 S.W.2d 922 (1983) (affirmance on subsequent appeal)
Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (burden on habeas petitioner to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (1992) (ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas)
Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 13 S.W.3d 143 (2000) (habeas is not a vehicle to retry issues that could have been raised on direct appeal)