Darrough v. Kelley
2017 Ark. 314
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Appellant Kedrick Trevon Darrough, pro se, filed a habeas petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-101 et seq., asserting his Arkansas drug sentences were illegally enhanced by an out‑of‑state conviction under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408.
- Darrough attached a California marijuana conviction to his petition and argued it was his only prior conviction, so he could not be a “second or subsequent offender” for enhancement purposes.
- The State did not file a return before the circuit court made a probable‑cause determination; Darrough moved for default judgment when the State did not respond.
- The circuit court denied the writ for lack of probable cause and refused to enter default judgment; it also declined an evidentiary hearing.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the circuit court erred in denying default, in finding Darrough failed to show probable cause that the out‑of‑state conviction could not be used for enhancement, and in refusing an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment was required because State did not timely respond | Darrough: State’s failure to respond required summary/default relief | Kelley: Civil rules and default do not apply to habeas under § 16-112-103; State need not file until probable-cause determination | Denied — rules of civil procedure do not apply; no return required until probable‑cause finding |
| Whether Arkansas could use an out‑of‑state conviction to enhance under § 5-64-408 | Darrough: California conviction was his only prior; he is a first‑time offender in Arkansas, so enhancement improper (relying on Sossamon) | Kelley: Darrough’s assertions insufficient to show the California conviction was not properly used; prior habeas denial exists | Denied — Darrough’s convictions were for intent‑to‑deliver (§ 5-64-401(a)), so § 5-64-408 enhancement can apply; Sossamon (simple possession) is distinguishable |
| Whether Darrough met the probable‑cause burden to obtain a writ | Darrough: attaching the California judgment established lack of jurisdiction/illegal sentence | Kelley: Attachments were bare and did not prove the conviction was the one used for enhancement; petitioner bears burden to show error | Denied — petitioner did not establish probable cause (lack of sentencing record/hearing transcript); right result can be affirmed on that basis |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Darrough: hearing necessary to resolve factual dispute about prior conviction and enhancement | Kelley: No probable‑cause finding, so no return or hearing required | Denied — no hearing required where petition fails to allege a proper habeas basis or show probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (noting habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief)
- Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (Ark. R. Civ. P. do not apply to postconviction habeas proceedings)
- Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (postconviction rules inapplicability)
- Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 38, 834 S.W.2d 642 (burden on appellant to produce record showing error)
- Sossamon v. State, 31 Ark. App. 131, 789 S.W.2d 738 (distinguishing enhancement inapplicability for simple possession under § 5-64-401(c))
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364 (standard of review for habeas decisions)