Clay v. Kelley
2017 Ark. 294
Ark.2017Background
- Michael Anthony Clay, pro se, filed a habeas corpus petition in the circuit court where he was incarcerated alleging actual innocence of capital murder and due-process violations.
- He claimed the State failed to charge or prove the underlying felony (robbery) required for capital murder under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 and argued his conviction should have been for first-degree murder instead.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to establish probable cause that his detention was illegal, or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, or that the commitment was facially invalid.
- Clay did not invoke Act 1780 (the statutory vehicle for asserting actual innocence) and did not plead facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction with supporting probable-cause evidence as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1).
- The Arkansas Supreme Court noted Clay’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims had been raised and rejected on direct appeal (Clay v. State) and that claims of actual innocence/sufficiency are not cognizable in ordinary habeas proceedings.
- The court rejected Clay’s reliance on Cole v. Arkansas and affirmed the dismissal, holding he failed to show probable cause for habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas relief is available for an actual-innocence/sufficiency challenge | Clay: State failed to prove robbery element; he is actually innocent of capital murder | Kelley: Actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are not cognizable in habeas absent Act 1780; must show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction with probable cause | Court: Denied — actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are not proper in ordinary habeas; Clay did not use Act 1780 or show probable cause |
| Whether the indictment/information was defective such that conviction violated due process | Clay: Information did not allege robbery as part of the same transaction; conviction for a charge he was not tried on violates due process (cites Cole) | Kelley: Defective-information claims are generally trial error, not jurisdictional; Cole is inapplicable here | Court: Denied — no specific jurisdictional defect alleged; Cole distinguishable; trial error not cognizable in habeas |
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction or the commitment is facially invalid | Clay: Implicit claim that lack of proper charging/element finding renders judgment invalid | Kelley: No facial defect alleged; jurisdiction intact; prior direct appeal addressed sufficiency | Court: Denied — Clay failed to allege or support facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect with probable cause |
| Whether procedural vehicle was proper (Act 1780 / venue) | Clay: Brought pro se habeas in county of incarceration claiming actual innocence | Kelley: Actual-innocence petitions must proceed under Act 1780 in the court of conviction | Court: Denied — Clay did not proceed under Act 1780 and filed in wrong forum for an actual-innocence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (discussing limits of habeas and Act 1780)
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (standard of review for habeas dismissal)
- Noble v. Norris, 243 S.W.3d 260 (habeas is not substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief)
- Clay v. State, 919 S.W.2d 190 (direct-appeal decision rejecting insufficiency challenge to robbery/transaction element)
- Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (due-process notice issue; distinguished on facts)
- McConaughy v. Lockhart, 840 S.W.2d 166 (ineffective-assistance claims not cognizable in habeas)