Gonder v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 239

Appellant Duane Gonder, pro se, challenged his 2010 guilty plea to attempting to furnish a prohibited article into a correctional facility and filed a habeas petition in Lincoln County Circuit Court.
The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition on January 19, 2017; Gonder moved under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60 and Ark. R. Evid. 201 for reconsideration and for judicial notice, which the court denied on March 10, 2017.
Gonder appealed the denial of those post-judgment motions to the Arkansas Supreme Court and also filed motions in that court for appointment of counsel and judicial notice; those motions were treated as moot.
Gonder argued the judgment and the trial-court oral pronouncement conflicted (guilty of furnishing vs. attempted furnishing), claimed actual innocence/insufficient evidence (relying on Laster), and alleged he was denied a hearing.
The circuit-court record contained a judgment reflecting conviction for attempted furnishing; the court limited habeas review to the face of the commitment order and declined to reweigh evidentiary sufficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conflict between sentence pronounced and judgment entered	Gonder: oral pronouncement labeled offense as furnishing, but judgment says attempted furnishing; facial illegality requires relief	State: record copy of judgment shows conviction for attempted furnishing; no facial defect	No error — judgment governs and shows conviction for attempted furnishing
Actual innocence / sufficiency of evidence	Gonder: cites Laster, argues insufficient proof he introduced the article; claims innocence	State: habeas is limited to facial defects or jurisdictional issues, not evidentiary sufficiency	Denied — sufficiency/actual-innocence claims not cognizable on habeas review of commitment order face
Failure to hold a hearing on habeas	Gonder: was entitled to a hearing	State: no hearing is required where petition lacks merit	Denied — no entitlement to hearing absent meritorious petition
Rule 60 / Rule 201 post-judgment relief	Gonder: sought relief to correct mistake, allow consideration of trial transcript, and judicial notice of statutes governing habeas	State: movant did not show rule-based grounds for relief	Denied — Gonder failed to demonstrate Rule 60 or Rule 201 relief was warranted

Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for habeas proceedings and affirmance absent clear error)
Bradford v. State, 94 S.W.3d 904 (Ark. 2003) (judgment entered governs the sentence)
Rowe, 285 S.W.3d 614 (Ark. 2009) (Rule 60 timing and clerical-error distinction)
Francis v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 265 S.W.3d 117 (Ark. 2007) (definition of true clerical error)
Laster v. State, 64 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. App. 2002) (insufficient proof of introduction of prohibited article can overturn conviction)
George v. State, 685 S.W.2d 141 (Ark. 1985) (no automatic right to a hearing on every habeas petition)