Chance v. Hobbs
441 S.W.3d 897
Ark.2014Background
- Franklin L. Chance, incarcerated in Lee County, filed a pro se habeas petition in 2014 seeking relief from a 2004 rape/incest conviction.
- He claimed jury-trial waiver issues, misapplication of Rule 24.3–24.7, and alleged prosecutorial/judicial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Lee County Circuit Court denied the habeas petition, and Chance appealed the denial.
- This Supreme Court per curiam decision concerns Chance's motion for extension of time to file a reply brief and the merits of the appeal.
- The court dismissed the appeal as meritless and held that a habeas petition is proper only if facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction is shown, which Chance did not establish.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas petition and appeal were properly dismissed for lack of facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction. | Chance argued multiple trial errors and misconduct warranting habeas relief. | Habeas relief requires facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; trial errors and ineffective assistance are not cognizable in habeas. | Yes; dismissal affirmed; petition failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 45 (Ark. (per curiam)) (per curiam denial of meritless postconviction appeal)
- Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam; habeas claims not meritorious on face)
- Glaze v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 458 (Ark. (per curiam)) (habeas relief requires facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (habeas burden to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Benton v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 385 (Ark. (per curiam)) (habeas relief standards; jurisdictional defects required)