Girley v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 325

James Girley was convicted of rape in Pulaski County in 1998 and sentenced to 300 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals previously affirmed as modified.
In 2013 Girley filed a pro se petition under Arkansas’s postconviction DNA-testing statute (Act 1780 / Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208), seeking STR (short tandem repeat) testing of the sexual-assault kit to prove actual innocence.
Girley asserted the petition was timely because (1) he was incompetent earlier, (2) the prosecution suppressed evidence in violation of Brady, (3) the sexual-assault kit was not introduced at trial (newly discovered evidence), and (4) STR is a new, more probative technology.
The trial court denied the petition as untimely, concluding STR technology was not new at the time of trial (citing Hamm) and that Girley failed to show his incompetence caused delay or otherwise rebut the statutory presumption against timeliness.
On appeal the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding Girley did not rebut the statutory 36-month presumption against timeliness and declining to consider the Brady argument raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petition was timely under Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-202	Girley: STR testing unavailable earlier; incompetence, Brady suppression, and the kit’s non-introduction justify delay	State: Petition filed ~15 years after conviction; Girley offered no factual proof to rebut 36-month presumption	Court: Petition untimely; Girley failed to rebut presumption against timeliness
Whether STR testing qualifies as a new method substantially more probative	Girley: STR is more probative than tests available at trial and justifies relief	State: STR technology was known/available around trial time (Hamm) and not shown to be newly discovered	Court: Girley did not prove STR was unavailable or substantially more probative then
Whether prosecutorial suppression (Brady) excuses untimeliness	Girley: Suppression of kit evidence by prosecution excuses delay	State: Brady claim not raised below; trial court had no opportunity to rule	Court: Brady issue not considered on appeal because raised for first time there
Whether claim of incompetence rebutted presumption against timeliness	Girley: He was incompetent and that caused the delay	State: No factual support in petition showing incompetence caused delay	Court: No factual showing; presumption not rebutted

Hamm v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 336 Ark. 391 (1999) (evidence that STR technology existed around time of Girley’s trial supports finding technology was not "new")
Biggs v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (2013) (recognizing statute permits habeas relief based on new scientific evidence proving actual innocence)
Strong v. State, 2010 Ark. 181 (2010) (discussing postconviction testing framework under Act 1780)
King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (2013) (identifying predicate statutory requirements a petitioner must meet before testing may be ordered)