Glaze v. Hobbs
2013 Ark. 458
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Glaze was convicted in 2010 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced as a habitual offender to 300 months; resentenced in 2012 to 216 months.
- In 2013, while incarcerated, Glaze filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in Lincoln County challenging underlying felonies and later alleged insufficient evidence to sustain those convictions.
- The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition, and Glaze appealed the dismissal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held the motion for extension of time moot, concluding Glaze could not prevail on appeal.
- The court explained habeas relief is proper only when a conviction is facially invalid or the court lacked jurisdiction; otherwise, it is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief.
- Allegations challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the felon-in-possession convictions did not implicate facial validity or jurisdiction and should have been raised at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal reviewable in this habeas context? | Glaze contends the petition warrants relief and merits review. | State argues the appeal is moot and lacks merit. | Appeal dismissed; moot; no merit to review. |
| Does the petition challenge facial validity or trial court jurisdiction? | Challenge to underlying convictions and sufficiency of evidence could implicate validity. | Allegations do not affect facial validity or jurisdiction of judgment. | Not facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; petition fails to warrant habeas relief. |
| Can habeas corpus be used to relitigate trial errors or sufficiency claims? | Issues should be able to be raised via habeas petition. | Habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief. | Habeas relief is not for retrying the case; claims should have been raised earlier. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (Ark. 2013) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief without merit)
- Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475 (Ark. 2007) (per curiam ruling on postconviction matters)
- Abernathy v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 335 (Ark. 2011) (habeas petitions require facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575 (Ark. 1994) (habeas corpus standards and burden to show invalid conviction)
- Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (Ark. 2012) (void or illegal sentences and jurisdiction considerations)
- McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 306 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; procedural posture in postconviction context)