Fulton v. State
2017 Ark. 102
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Fulton was convicted in Pulaski County Circuit Court in 2015 of first-degree murder and sentenced to 420 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
- Fulton, incarcerated in Chicot County, filed a pro se habeas petition in Chicot County Circuit Court contesting sufficiency of the evidence, due-process violations, and trial counsel effectiveness.
- He primarily attacked the credibility and corroboration of State witness Atarius Bishop and identified other State witnesses as unsupportive of the verdict.
- The Chicot County Circuit Court denied the habeas petition without a hearing, concluding Fulton failed to state a ground for the writ.
- Fulton appealed; the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the petition alleged either facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction — the statutory bases for habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether insufficiency of evidence is a writ ground | Fulton: trial evidence (witness testimony) was insufficient to sustain conviction | State: sufficiency is not a habeas ground; was or could be raised on direct appeal | Court: insufficiency of evidence is not cognizable in habeas; claim fails |
| Whether trial errors / due-process violations permit habeas relief | Fulton: trial rulings and alleged due-process violations invalidated judgment | State: ordinary trial error does not deprive court of jurisdiction; such claims belong on direct appeal or other remedies | Court: trial errors/due-process claims are not proper habeas grounds |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel may be raised in habeas | Fulton: counsel was ineffective at trial | State: ineffective-assistance claims must be raised under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 (postconviction), not habeas | Court: ineffectiveness claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings |
| Whether a hearing was required on the habeas petition | Fulton: entitled to a hearing | State: hearing not required when petition fails to allege statutory bases for habeas relief | Court: no hearing required where petition does not raise proper habeas grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for habeas corpus decisions)
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2015) (habeas proper only where judgment is facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction)
- Gardner v. Hobbs, 439 S.W.3d 663 (Ark. 2014) (insufficiency-of-evidence is a due-process claim not cognizable in habeas)
- Allen v. Kelley, 482 S.W.3d 719 (Ark. 2016) (habeas is not a vehicle to reargue issues or retry the case)
- McConaughy v. Lockhart, 840 S.W.2d 166 (Ark. 1992) (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised under Rule 37.1, not in habeas)