Anderson v. Kelley, 549 S.W.3d 913

Theodore Anderson was convicted after a bench trial of residential burglary, domestic battering, and rape and received an aggregate 240-month sentence.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction; Anderson filed successive pro se habeas petitions challenging the conviction and procedure.
Two prior habeas petitions were denied and affirmed on appeal (including Anderson v. Kelley). This is his third habeas petition.
In the present petition Anderson alleged lack of jurisdiction because the case was allegedly filed in juvenile court, and raised multiple procedural defects (arrest, arraignment, plea on the record, defective information, and prosecuting attorney signature authority).
The circuit court denied relief; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding most claims were trial-error or waived and the jurisdictional claim lacked merit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court lacked jurisdiction because case was filed in juvenile court	Anderson: filing in juvenile court deprived circuit court of subject-matter jurisdiction	State: prior rulings and authority show no jurisdictional defect; claim previously rejected	Court: claim without merit; not a basis for habeas relief
Arrest/arraignment/plea were procedurally defective	Anderson: arrest and arraignment procedures were defective, no on-the-record plea	State: these are trial errors or procedure issues, not jurisdictional; not cognizable in habeas	Court: claims are trial error; habeas unavailable to correct them
Criminal information defective; deputy prosecutor lacked authority to sign	Anderson: information was defective and improperly signed	State: defect is a non-jurisdictional trial issue and was/would be waived if not raised at trial	Court: defective-information claims are trial error here and insufficient for habeas
Re-litigation / abuse of the writ / law-of-the-case	Anderson: raised additional facts to support jurisdictional claim	State: prior adjudications control; abuse-of-the-writ/rea judicata principles apply	Court: additional facts insufficient to change result; petition was an abuse of the writ

Anderson v. Kelley, 473 S.W.3d 537 (Ark. 2015) (prior habeas denial and appellate disposition controlling)
Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for habeas denial; clearly erroneous test)
Garrison v. Kelley, 534 S.W.3d 136 (Ark. 2018) (petitioner must show probable cause of illegal detention in habeas)
Clay v. Kelley, 528 S.W.3d 836 (Ark. 2017) (general defective-information allegations are trial error unless they raise jurisdictional defects)
Ratliff v. Kelley, 541 S.W.3d 408 (Ark. 2018) (trial errors and due-process assertions that do not affect facial validity of judgment are not cognizable in habeas)
Geoates v. State, 176 S.W.2d 919 (Ark. 1944) (deficiencies in the information must be raised by motion to quash or are waived)
Dupree v. State, 607 S.W.2d 356 (Ark. 1980) (procedural remedy for challenging information is motion to quash)
Cloird v. State, 99 S.W.3d 419 (Ark. 2003) (law-of-the-case does not bar consideration of new facts supportive of a jurisdictional claim)
Halfacre v. Kelley, 538 S.W.3d 834 (Ark. 2018) (appellate courts will not consider arguments not raised below)