Burgie v. Hobbs
2013 Ark. 360
Ark.2013Background
- Burgie was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery in Garland County; aggregate sentence life without parole, affirmed on direct appeal in 2003.
- In August 2012 Burgie filed pro se habeas corpus petitions in Jefferson County challenging the judgment and commitment; circuit court denied relief.
- Burgie timely appealed and moved for reconsideration and for an order returning file-marked pleadings.
- Before the court, Burgie sought appointment of counsel, extensions for briefs, and a writ of mandamus to obtain copies of the information.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held the remaining motions and mandamus petition moot; claims did not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction.
- The court explained that habeas petitions may not relitigate nonjurisdictional trial errors or seek extensive postconviction review when facial validity or jurisdiction is not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas review can address a deficient charging document | Burgie contends information failed to charge predicate aggravated robbery. | State argues lack of jurisdictional defect; nonjurisdictional trial error claims not cognizable. | Not cognizable; claims do not challenge facial validity or circuit-jurisdiction. |
| Whether double jeopardy claims were cognizable in habeas corpus | Convicted and sentenced for capital murder and aggravated robbery; asserts improper multiple punishments. | Double-jeopardy claims not implicated in facial-validity/jurisdiction review. | Not cognizable; appellant failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the circuit court acted within jurisdiction to sentence for underlying felony and capital murder | Aggravated robbery not enumerated as predicate felony at time; questions jurisdiction. | Court had authority; aggravated robbery could support capital-murder charges. | Court acted within jurisdiction; aggravated robbery supports capital murder as predicate felony. |
| Whether the claims amount to an ex post facto or vague- schema violation | Challenged elements as violative of ex post facto and vagueness. | Claims are not cognizable in habeas review and require more than face-order inquiry. | Not cognizable; cannot be addressed in habeas corpus as facial-invalidity or jurisdiction issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (Ark. 2013) (postconviction appeal not allowed when no clear relief)
- Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (Ark. 2013) (clear-error standard for postconviction relief)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (Ark. 2013) (face of commitment review limits habeas inquiry)
- Murry v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 64 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; habeas procedure requirements)
- Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (Ark. 2012) (facial validity/jurisdiction focus in habeas petitions)
- Skinner v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 383 (Ark. 2011) (per curiam; limitations of habeas review)
- Bryant v. May, 2013 Ark. 168 (Ark. 2013) (nonjurisdictional charging defects not grounds for habeas relief)
- Goins v. Norris, 2012 Ark. 192 (Ark. 2012) (habeas petition if judgment facially valid)
- Willis v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 509 (Ark. 2011) (claims failing to identify the crime are not cognizable)
- Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315 (Ark. 2005) (inquiry limited to face of judgment)
- Nooner v. State, 322 Ark. 87 (Ark. 1995) (aggravated robbery can support capital murder)
- Simpson v. State, 274 Ark. 188 (Ark. 1981) (robbery vs aggravated robbery as predicate felonies)
- Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 19 (Ark. 2013) (circuit-sentencing authority reaffirmed)