Early v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 313

Petitioner Reginald Early filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court; the petition was denied and Early timely filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 2014.
Early tendered the record to the Arkansas Supreme Court, but the clerk declined to lodge it because the record omitted Early’s habeas petition; the record was first tendered December 30, 2014.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civ. 5 requires the record be tendered within 90 days of the notice of appeal; Early did not tender a complete record until he filed a motion on May 1, 2015.
Early moved in this Court for what he called a belated appeal; because his notice was timely, the Court treated the filing as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the appeal.
Early argued the circuit clerk supplied an insufficient record and otherwise asserted two grounds in his habeas petition: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict, and (2) insufficient corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony.
The Supreme Court concluded that even if procedural default issues were excused, Early’s habeas claims were not cognizable and he could not prevail on appeal; the motion to proceed was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal record was properly lodged and timely tendered	Early contends the circuit clerk gave an insufficient record and excuses the late tender	The State/Clerk relied on AR App. P.-Civ. 5; record was incomplete and not tendered within 90 days	The Court treated the filing as a motion for rule on clerk but denied it because Early could not prevail on the merits
Whether habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims	Early claimed counsel’s failure to move for directed verdict rendered the judgment facially invalid	Respondent argued ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings	Court held ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas and cannot justify relief
Whether insufficient evidence / lack of corroboration renders judgment invalid on its face	Early argued accomplice testimony lacked corroboration, so conviction was facially invalid	Respondent asserted sufficiency challenges and corroboration issues are not facial defects cognizable in habeas	Court held sufficiency/corroboration claims require factual inquiry and are not cognizable in habeas
Whether the denial of habeas relief should be reversed given Early’s procedural noncompliance	Early sought allowance to proceed despite procedural failures	Respondent asserted procedural rules and merits foreclose relief	Court concluded Early could not prevail on appeal and denied the motion to proceed

Holland v. State, 358 Ark. 366, 190 S.W.3d 904 (court treated motion as rule on clerk when notice timely) (2004)
Butcher v. State, 345 Ark. 222, 45 S.W.3d 378 (pro se petitioner must show good cause for procedural failures) (2001)
Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (good-cause requirement for belated appeals) (1987)
Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (postconviction appeals without merit will not proceed) (1996)
Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (limitations on postconviction relief) (1991)
Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (postconviction procedure standards) (1990)
Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (postconviction relief principles) (1987)
Hale v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 405, 443 S.W.3d 533 (writ issues: facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction) (2014)
McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (ineffective-assistance claims not cognizable in habeas) (1992)
Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (habeas not for factual inquiries beyond facial validity) (2005)
Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or Rule 37) (2006)
Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (affirming denial where petitioner failed to establish cause for writ) (2007)