Barber v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 214

In 2013 Tommy Martez Barber pled guilty to first-degree murder and received a 480-month sentence.
In 2016 Barber, while incarcerated in Jefferson County, filed a pro se habeas petition in circuit court seeking release; the petition was dismissed for failure to state a basis for the writ.
Barber appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court on November 10, 2016; a briefing schedule was mailed to him and he was notified his brief was due December 20, 2016.
Barber did not file a brief or seek an extension; the State moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute on March 6, 2017.
Barber filed a pro se motion for a belated appeal (treated as a motion to file a belated brief), claiming he never received notice due to unreliable prison mail and asserting the appeal had merit.
The Court granted the State’s motion to dismiss and treated Barber’s belated-appeal request as moot, concluding Barber showed no good cause and his habeas claims were not cognizable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appeal should be dismissed for failure to file brief	Barber: did not receive notice; prison mail unreliable; should be allowed to proceed	State: appellant failed to prosecute; briefing deadline missed; dismiss appeal	Appeal dismissed for failure to file brief; unsubstantiated mail failure not good cause
Whether pro se status or incarceration excuses noncompliance with rules	Barber: pro se and incarcerated, so lack of notice should be excused	State: rules apply regardless of pro se status or incarceration	Pro se status and incarceration do not excuse procedural noncompliance
Whether Barber’s habeas claims warranted relief	Barber: plea involuntary, insufficient factual basis, denial of grand-jury, ineffective assistance	State: claims are trial errors or cognizable under other remedies, not habeas relief	Claims do not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; not grounds for habeas relief
Whether ineffective-assistance claim is cognizable in habeas	Barber: raised ineffective assistance in petition	State: such claims belong in Rule 37.1 proceedings, not habeas	Ineffective-assistance claims must be raised under Rule 37.1, not in habeas

Hogue v. Hogue, 262 Ark. 767 (failure to file brief may constitute abandonment)
Ottens v. State, 316 Ark. 1 (pro se litigants must conform to procedural rules)
Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582 (a guilty plea is the defendant’s trial)
Blevins v. Norris, 291 Ark. 70 (habeas does not challenge sufficiency of evidence)
McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686 (ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37.1 proceedings)
Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (states may charge by information; no federal grand-jury right applies to states)
Taylor v. State, 303 Ark. 586 (Arkansas has refused to extend grand-jury indictment right to state proceedings)
Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321 (habeas will not correct trial errors or irregularities)