Grissom v. Hobbs, 476 S.W.3d 160

In 2004 Darrell Grissom was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of rape, incest, sexual abuse, and sexual assault and sentenced to an aggregate 1,584 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
Grissom, incarcerated in Lincoln County, filed a pro se Arkansas habeas-corpus petition in 2014 under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101 to -123 claiming: a Brady violation for nondisclosure of a “Bill of Particular” (dates/times), ineffective assistance of counsel, and related due-process and sentencing (Eighth Amendment) claims.
The Lincoln County Circuit Court dismissed the petition because Grissom failed to attach a copy of his judgment-and-commitment order and because his ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
On appeal Grissom abandoned his ineffective-assistance claims; he primarily argued evidence was insufficient and that withheld Brady material (timing details) prejudiced his trial, and separately argued sentencing mitigation should have been considered.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed standards for habeas relief (facial invalidity of judgment or lack of jurisdiction) and held Grissom failed to show unlawful detention or a facially invalid judgment; it affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady/prosecutorial nondisclosure of "Bill of Particulars" (timing evidence)	Grissom: State withheld material (dates/times) that would have altered the trial outcome.	Hobbs: Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not cognizable in Arkansas habeas proceedings; claim should have been raised at trial/appeal.	Held: Dismissed—Brady claims fall outside habeas scope; no facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect shown.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Grissom alleged counsel failed to preserve/appellate issues and use evidence.	Hobbs: Ineffective-assistance claims are not proper in habeas; must be raised by appropriate postconviction remedy.	Held: Abandoned on appeal; and in any event not cognizable in habeas—dismissed.
Sufficiency of charging instrument / notice of charges	Grissom suggested he wasn’t properly advised of charges (timing elements).	Hobbs: Objections to form/sufficiency of charging instrument must be raised before trial; habeas is not the proper vehicle.	Held: Dismissed—cannot attack charging instrument via habeas; no facial defect shown.
Eighth Amendment / sentencing mitigation	Grissom: Trial court’s failure to consider mitigating evidence renders sentence cruel and unusual.	Hobbs: Sentences fall within statutory limits; dissatisfaction with severity is not a basis for habeas release.	Held: Dismissed—claim raised first on appeal; sentence not shown to be unauthorized or illegal.

Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. 2014) (standard for appellate review of habeas denials)
Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 873 S.W.2d 524 (Ark. 1994) (scope of habeas relief—facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2006) (petitioner’s burden to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and need for probable-cause showing)
Griffis v. Hobbs, 458 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. 2015) (habeas is not proper vehicle to attack charging instrument or revive unpreserved trial objections)
Gardner v. Hobbs, 439 S.W.3d 663 (Ark. 2014) (issues raised first on appeal are not grounds to reverse habeas dismissals)
Joslin v. State, 364 Ark. 545, 222 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. 2006) (sentence unauthorized only when outside statutory limits)
Fullerton v. McCord, 339 Ark. 45, 2 S.W.3d 775 (Ark. 1999) (principal issue in habeas is unlawful detention)