Darrough v. State
2014 Ark. 334
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2006 Darrough was convicted in Drew County of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and marijuana; he received consecutive enhanced terms totaling 1,080 months. The Arkansas Court of Appeals previously affirmed.
- Darrough filed postconviction Rule 37.1 relief, which was denied and that denial was affirmed by this court in 2008.
- On February 24, 2014, while incarcerated in Lee County, Darrough filed a pro se habeas petition in Drew County under Act 1780/Act 2250 (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208), alleging (1) new scientific evidence showing actual innocence (unspecified) and (2) that his sentence was illegally enhanced because he was a first-time offender.
- The Drew County Circuit Court denied the petition, finding no allegation of an illegal-on-its-face judgment or lack of jurisdiction. Darrough appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the petition stated no viable basis for relief and the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction to issue habeas relief because Darrough was held in Lee County when he filed. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition alleges new scientific evidence of actual innocence under Act 1780/2250 | Darrough asserted there was scientific evidence proving actual innocence (unspecified) | Petition fails to identify specific new scientific evidence to be tested | Petition insufficient under §§ 16-112-201 to -208; no merit because no specific evidence alleged |
| Whether sentence was illegal because enhancement was improper (illegal sentence) | Darrough claimed he was a first-time offender and sentence enhancement was improper | State: claim of illegal sentence should be brought under general habeas statute and must meet venue/custody rules | If intended as challenge under §§ 16-112-101 to -123, petition was filed in wrong county (appellant in Lee County), so Drew County lacked personal jurisdiction |
| Whether Drew County had personal jurisdiction to grant habeas relief | Implicitly: Drew County could act on the petition filed there | State: personal jurisdiction requires writ be directed to the custodian and issued by court with personal jurisdiction over defendant’s custodian; petitioner was in Lee County | Court held Drew County lacked personal jurisdiction because Darrough was detained in Lee County when he filed, so relief could not be granted there |
| Whether appeal should proceed though petition deficient | Darrough appealed denial | State moved to dismiss because appellant could not succeed on appeal given deficiencies | Appeal dismissed — court will not permit an appeal that clearly cannot succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortier v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 209 (per curiam) (appeal from denial of postconviction/habeas relief may be dismissed when appellant cannot prevail)
- Ferrell v. State, 2014 Ark. 242 (per curiam) (statute authorizing habeas for new scientific evidence of actual innocence)
- King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (per curiam) (same statutory framework for actual-innocence scientific-evidence claims)
- Meraz v. State, 2013 Ark. 419 (per curiam) (personal-jurisdiction and proper custodian/venue requirements for habeas relief)
- Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321 (1991) (custody in another county precludes issuing habeas relief by the filing county)