Arnett v. Hobbs
2014 Ark. 540
Ark.2014Background
- Michael Brian Arnett, pro se, filed a habeas-corpus petition in the Lincoln County Circuit Court in 2013 while incarcerated.
- Arnett is serving an aggregate 360-month sentence from a 2009 second-degree murder and abuse-of-a-corpse conviction (affirmed on direct appeal).
- The 2013 habeas petition attacked two 2010 Clark County misdemeanor convictions (aggregate 12-month county-jail sentence).
- The circuit court found Arnett was not held in custody on the 2010 misdemeanor judgments and dismissed the habeas petition.
- The court noted challenges to the 2010 misdemeanor judgments should have been raised by timely postconviction relief under Rule 37.1, not by habeas while Arnett was incarcerated on the 2009 felony judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief is proper to challenge 2010 misdemeanor judgments | Arnett sought habeas relief attacking the 2010 misdemeanor convictions | State argued Arnett was not in custody on those misdemeanor judgments and habeas was improper; Rule 37.1 was the proper remedy | Court held Arnett was not in custody on the 2010 misdemeanor judgments and habeas relief was not available; petition dismissed |
| Whether a habeas petition can substitute for untimely Rule 37.1 relief | Arnett implicitly relied on habeas to address alleged defects in the misdemeanor judgments | State contended habeas cannot substitute for a timely postconviction Rule 37.1 petition | Court held habeas is not a substitute for timely Rule 37.1 postconviction relief; challenges must be raised in trial court timely |
| Whether the judgment-and-commitment was facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction | Arnett did not allege current custody or facial invalidity of the misdemeanor judgments | State maintained burden is on petitioner to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity and to provide probable-cause showing | Court held Arnett failed to meet the burden to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity and thus failed to establish grounds for habeas |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575 (1992) (habeas is proper when judgment is facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219 (2006) (burden on petitioner to allege custody by the judgment challenged and to show probable cause by affidavit or other evidence)
- Friend v. Hobbs, 364 Ark. 315 (2005) (habeas is not a substitute for timely Rule 37.1 postconviction relief)