Barton v. State, 2014 Ark. 418

In 2012 Barton pled guilty to eight counts aggravated robbery, one count aggravated residential burglary, eight counts felony theft, one count kidnapping, and one count battery in the second degree, with an aggregate 300-month sentence.
In 2013 Barton filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under Act 1780 seeking relief based on alleged new scientific evidence of actual innocence.
The petition was denied; Barton appealed.
The court explained the Act 1780 standard: must show new scientific evidence not available at trial establishing actual innocence.
Barton claimed multiple aggravated-robbery counts were part of a continuing course of conduct and invoked double jeopardy, but the petition did not present cognizable scientific-evidence grounds.
The trial court’s denial was affirmed under standard review for postconviction relief and the petition was deemed insufficient under §16-112-201(a)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barton showed new scientific evidence establishing actual innocence	Barton asserts new scientific evidence exists.	State contends no factual support for new evidence is provided.	Denied; no factual support shown.
Whether Barton's double-jeopardy claim is cognizable under Act 1780	Barton argues multiple robberies formed one continuing course of conduct.	Act 1780 does not address non-scientific issues and is not a vehicle for this claim.	Denied; not cognizable under Act 1780.

Graham v. State, 358 Ark. 296 (2004) (per curiam; standards for habeas and Act 1780 claims (identity considerations))
Edwards v. State, 2014 Ark. 185 (2014) (per curiam; predicates for testing under Act 1780)
Darrough v. State, 2014 Ark. 334 (2014) (failure to provide factual support defeats relief under Act 1780)
Strong v. State, 2010 Ark. 181 (2010) (per curiam; standard for postconviction relief)
Cooper v. State, 2013 Ark. 180 (2013) (per curiam; avenues for relief under Act 1780)