Bumgarner v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 78

Appellant Jimmy Bumgardner was convicted in 2005 of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of pseudoephedrine; sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of 720, 240, and 144 months and fined $15,000.
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Bumgardner I; postconviction relief under Rule 37.1 denied in Bumgardner II; habeas petition denied in Bumgardner III; transferred units affected personal jurisdiction over him.
In 2011 Bumgardner filed a second pro se habeas petition in Jefferson County Circuit Court, which denied relief, holding jurisdiction proper and issues previously adjudicated.
On appeal Bumgardner challenges the court’s authority to impose consecutive sentences, the nature of the proceedings as a resentencing event, and requests jail-time credit, arguing constitutional violations and improper consideration of evidence.
The state argues habeas relief requires jurisdictional or facial invalidity findings and that law-of-the-case forecloses re-litigation of issues decided in prior appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive sentences after a concurrent recommendation	Bumgardner argues lack of jurisdiction to modify to consecutive terms.	State contends the court acted within authority; prior rulings support consecutive sentencing.	No; law-of-the-case supports consecutive sentences and authority existed.
Whether the in-court meeting was a resentencing hearing affecting rights	Bumgardner claims the meeting was a resentencing proceeding.	State contends it was merely a correction reflecting original intent to run consecutive.	No; proceedings were not a resentencing hearing and were within prior rulings.
Whether law-of-the-case bars re-litigation of sentencing issues	Bumgardner asserts new challenges to sentences.	State relies on law-of-the-case doctrine due to prior adjudication.	Yes; issues resolved in Bumgardner II/earlier decisions are not revisited.
Whether jail-time credit issues were cognizable in habeas corpus	Bumgardner seeks jail-time credit as part of an illegal sentence claim.	State argues jail-time credit is a Rule 37.1 matter, not habeas relief.	Jail-time credit claims must be brought under Rule 37.1; not habeas relief.

Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (Ark. 2012) (habeas corpus relief requires show of jurisdiction or invalid commitment; actual innocence not required in all Act 1780 contexts)
Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2013) (requires probable cause showing for detention in certain habeas proceedings)
Justus v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 149 (Ark. 2013) (clear standard for reviewing habeas denial; findings not clearly erroneous)
Pitts v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 457 (Ark. 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine governs repeated challenges adjudicated previously)
Strong v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 376 (Ark. 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine precludes reconsideration of settled issues)