Gardner v. Hobbs
2014 Ark. 346
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Wallace Gardner was convicted by jur y in 2004 of capital murder and aggravated robbery and, as a habitual offender, received a life sentence without parole; this Court later affirmed in Gardner v. State, 364 Ark. 506 (2006).
- In 2013 Gardner, incarcerated in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from his judgment.
- He asserted double jeopardy due to the felony information requiring proof of the underlying aggravated robbery to prove capital murder, claimed actual innocence, asserted insufficient evidence, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the habeas petition and Gardner moved for appointment of counsel on appeal.
- On appeal, Gardner reiterated claims from the habeas petition and argued additional issues not raised below; the court denied the petition and denied appointment of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double-jeopardy eligibility in habeas | Gardner argues the information creates illegal multiple punishments | Hobbs contends the claim is either unreviewable or meritless on the record | Cognizable portion rejected; no merit shown; circuit court correct |
| Sufficiency of the evidence / actual innocence | Gardner contends the evidence was insufficient and he is actually innocent | State maintains claims not cognizable for habeas review | Not cognizable in habeas; issues are trial challenges not facial invalidity |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Gardner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel | Ineffective assistance not a habeas ground; postconviction relief urged | Not cognizable in habeas; should proceed under Rule 37.1 for postconviction |
| Arrest validity / probable cause (jurisdictional defects) | Arrest issues and probable cause challenge the validity of the arrest | Raised on appeal; not properly raised in habeas petition | Issues not raised in petition; jurisdictional implications discussed but no reversal on arrest grounds |
| General/procedural posture of habeas review | Petitioner seeks broader review of trial-related errors | Habeas review limited to facial validity or jurisdiction | Court affirmed circuit court; no facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction found |
Key Cases Cited
- Cothren v. State, 344 Ark. 697 (2001) (double-jeopardy and sentence authority considerations in capital cases)
- Burgie v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 360 (per curiam) (cognizable habeas claims; limitations on relief)
- Jackson v. State, 2013 Ark. 19 (per curiam) (authority to sentence underlying felony and capital murder)
- Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 413 (per curiam) (due process/evidence claims not cognizable in habeas)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (per curiam) (habeas review limitations; procedural posture)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219 (2006) (limitations of habeas review; facial validity standard)