Gardner v. State
2013 Ark. 410
Ark.2013Background
- Appellant Wallace Gardner was convicted in 2004 of capital murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed in Gardner v. State, 364 Ark. 506 (2006).
- In 2013 Gardner, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 seeking scientific testing of a gun and shell casings related to the murder.
- The trial court denied the petition, and Gardner appealed, challenging the court’s denial and seeking public expense records for the record.
- Act 1780 allows testing based on new scientific evidence of innocence, but predicates requiring exist and must be satisfied, including new technology and material evidence.
- Gardner’s petition largely asserted testing but did not show it would produce new scientific evidence or satisfy §16-112-202.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot and the petition as untimely, affirming the circuit court’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition was timely under §16-112-202(10)(B). | Gardner argues for relief and timing could be excused by new evidence. | State argues the petition was filed after the 36-month presumption and failed to rebut. | Petition untimely; presumption not rebutted. |
| Whether testing could provide new scientific evidence under §16-112-202. | Gardner contends testing could yield new evidence of innocence. | Testing described did not show potential for new evidence per §16-112-202. | Testing did not satisfy §16-112-202 requirements. |
| Whether the circuit court properly denied relief given the predicate requirements. | Gardner relied on Act 1780 provisions. | Requirements were not met; no new technology or evidence shown. | Court did not err in denying relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; outlines predicates for habeas testing under Act 1780)
- Foster v. State, 2013 Ark. 61 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; similar predicates for testing under Act 1780)
- Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579 (Ark. 2006) (per curiam; discusses thresholds for testing under Act 1780)