Barnes v. State
2017 Ark. 76
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Kevin V. Barnes pleaded guilty to four felonies in Pulaski County Circuit Court (60CR-14-3790) and was sentenced to an aggregate 240 months' imprisonment on January 26, 2016.
- On April 6, 2016, Barnes filed a pro se "belated motion to retract" his plea alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court treated it as a Rule 37.1 petition for postconviction relief.
- The trial court denied the petition as procedurally defective; Barnes appealed and moved in this Court for (1) an extension to file an appellant’s brief, (2) appointment of counsel, and (3) a transcript.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as meritless because Barnes failed to comply with Rule 37.1(c)’s verification/affidavit requirement, a substantive requirement that mandates dismissal when omitted.
- Although Barnes’ petition was signed and notarized, he did not attach or complete the required Rule 37.1(c) form affidavit swearing to the truth and completeness of the petition, which is necessary to prevent perjury.
- Because dismissal of the appeal was warranted on the verification defect, the Court rendered Barnes’s ancillary motions moot and dismissed the appeal summarily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes’s pro se filing alleging ineffective assistance should be treated as a Rule 37.1 petition | Barnes labeled his filing a "motion to retract" and argued ineffective assistance of counsel | State: the filing is a Rule 37.1 petition challenging a judgment entered on a guilty plea and must meet Rule 37.1 requirements | Court: treated the filing as a Rule 37.1 petition and applied the Rule |
| Whether the petition complied with Rule 37.1(c)’s verification/affidavit requirement | Barnes argued his petition was signed and notarized and timely filed | State: petition lacked the required Rule 37.1(c) affidavit form and proper verification as amended in 2006 | Court: petition failed Rule 37.1(c) verification; dismissal required |
| Whether appeal should proceed despite procedural defect | Barnes sought appellate review and relief (counsel, transcript, extension) | State: procedural noncompliance is fatal and forecloses relief | Court: appeal dismissed as appellant could not prevail; motions moot |
| Whether labeling or form can circumvent Rule 37.1 requirements | Barnes attempted to avoid Rule 37.1 formalities by calling it a motion to retract | State: label does not avoid Rule 37.1 obligations for collateral attacks on judgments | Court: labels cannot circumvent Rule 37.1; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180, 848 S.W.2d 391 (per curiam) (collateral attacks on judgments are governed by Rule 37.1 regardless of label)
- Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248, 208 S.W.3d 134 (verification requirement for postconviction petitions is substantively important)
- Livingston v. State, 2014 Ark. 364, 439 S.W.3d 693 (a petition to correct sentence that challenges a guilty-plea judgment is properly considered a Rule 37.1 petition)
- Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228, 493 S.W.3d 309 (Rule 37.1 was amended to require a form affidavit and strict verification; failure mandates dismissal)
- Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144, 459 S.W.3d 302 (court must dismiss petitions that fail to comply with Rule 37.1(c))