Dunbar v. State
2015 Ark. 3
Ark.2015Background
- Derrick L. Dunbar pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in 2013 and was sentenced to 240 months' imprisonment.
- Dunbar filed a pro se habeas-corpus petition in Lee County Circuit Court (where he was confined), claiming ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea advice about time to serve before parole eligibility.
- He alleged counsel told him he would serve 70% before parole eligibility but later learned he must serve 100%, rendering his plea unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent.
- The circuit court denied the petition as conclusory, finding the allegations insufficient to show facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction.
- Dunbar appealed; the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the petition pleaded a cognizable habeas claim or otherwise established grounds for relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim attacking guilty plea is cognizable in habeas | Dunbar: counsel failed to inform him he would have to serve 100%, so plea was not knowing/voluntary | State: ineffective-assistance claims regarding guilty pleas must be raised under Rule 37.1, not habeas | Denied — such claims are not cognizable in habeas; should be raised in Rule 37 postconviction proceedings |
| Whether petition alleged facial invalidity of judgment or lack of jurisdiction | Dunbar: petition asserts errors sufficient to render judgment invalid on its face | State: petition contained only conclusory, convoluted statements and did not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction | Denied — petitioner failed to plead facts showing facial invalidity or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether conclusory allegations suffice to obtain habeas relief | Dunbar: argued allegations were not conclusory | State: conclusory statements without supporting facts do not warrant habeas relief | Denied — purely conclusory assertions are insufficient for a writ |
| Standard of review for denial of habeas relief | Dunbar: implicit challenge to factual findings | State: denial will not be reversed unless findings are clearly erroneous | Court: applied clearly erroneous standard and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Straughn, 439 S.W.3d 1 (per curiam) (denial of habeas relief reviewed for clear error)
- Young v. Norris, 226 S.W.3d 797 (per curiam) (burden on habeas petitioner to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Rickenbacker v. Norris, 206 S.W.3d 220 (per curiam) (habeas is not a substitute for Rule 37 postconviction relief)
- Baker v. Norris, 255 S.W.3d 466 (jurisdiction is power to hear and determine subject matter)