Green v. State
2016 Ark. 216
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 2008, James Edward Green pled guilty to first-degree terroristic threatening, second-degree sexual assault, and a revocation of a suspended sentence for another terroristic-threatening count; he received an aggregate 36-month sentence.
- After release, Green was convicted by jury on December 1, 2011, for failing to comply with sex-offender registration/reporting and for residing within 2,000 feet of a daycare as a level 4 sex offender; the Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction.
- On October 8, 2015, Green filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in Drew County, alleging constitutional violations related to his 2008 plea and sex-offender designation (including claims about being labeled a sexually violent predator, due-process/equal-protection issues, dissemination of false information, and lack of notice about electronic monitoring).
- The circuit court treated the petition as a collateral attack on his convictions and sentences, concluding it was a Rule 37 postconviction action and was untimely.
- Green appealed, but conceded he did not raise all issues from the trial court; unraised issues were deemed abandoned.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding the petition was a collateral postconviction challenge governed by Rule 37 and was untimely (filed long after Rule 37’s 90-day requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition for declaratory judgment is a civil action or a collateral postconviction attack | Green: petition is civil in nature and seeks declaratory relief subject to due-process and equal-protection review | State: pleading is in substance a collateral attack on convictions/sentences and therefore governed by Rule 37 | Court: It is a collateral attack governed by Rule 37; not a separate civil declaratory action |
| Timeliness under Rule 37 | Green: did not specifically dispute timeliness substantively in argument; sought remand for hearing | State: petition was untimely under Rule 37.2’s 90-day requirement | Court: Petition was untimely (1397 days after judgment), so relief denied |
| Challenge to labeling as a "sexually violent predator" and separation-of-powers claim | Green: designation occurred without proper judicial determination under Ark. Code §12-12-918 and violates separation of powers; dissemination of false info | State: designation/related claims attack convictions/status and fall under postconviction rules | Court: These claims collaterally attack judgments and thus are subject to Rule 37 and untimely |
| Due process/equal protection, notice of electronic monitoring, and mental-disease/actual-innocence claims | Green: alleges lack of notice about monitoring and that mental-disease issues were not considered; asserts actual innocence and constitutional violations | State: procedural posture controls; merits not reached because petition is a late collateral attack | Court: Court did not reach merits; denied because Rule 37 bars untimely collateral attacks |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 312 Ark. 180 (1993) (motion styled as declaratory relief that collaterally attacks judgment is governed by Rule 37)
- Jones v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Assessment Comm., 2014 Ark. 135 (per curiam) (postconviction timing and rule application)
- Nickels v. State, 2016 Ark. 11 (per curiam) (postconviction pleading treated according to Rule 37 despite label)
- Moten v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 80 (per curiam) (issues not raised on appeal are abandoned)