542 S.W.3d 852
Ark.2018Background
- Appellant Jessie Hill is serving life without parole for a 1995 Grant County capital-murder conviction affirmed by this court in Hill v. State, 325 Ark. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (1996).
- Hill filed a pro se petition in Lincoln County seeking postconviction relief under Act 1780 (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208) and a writ of audita querela (treated as coram nobis), requesting scientific testing of crime-scene items (notably a marble rolling pin) and asserting actual innocence.
- Hill relied on Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), arguing Bailey created a new constitutional rule narrowing the meaning of "use" of a deadly weapon and entitled him to retroactive relief/testing.
- The Lincoln County Circuit Court denied Hill’s petitions for lack of jurisdiction (the Grant County court entered the conviction), and Hill appealed the denial.
- This court dismissed the appeal as it was clear the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Hill’s Act 1780 habeas petition and coram nobis claim; motions and petition rendered moot. Justice Hart dissented, arguing venue is not jurisdiction and the defense of improper venue was not pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill's petition under Act 1780 could be heard in Lincoln County | Hill: Act 1780 relief and testing available; relied on Bailey and sought testing; filed in Lincoln County | State: Relief must be sought in the court that entered the conviction (Grant County); Lincoln County lacked jurisdiction | Court: Dismissed—Act 1780 habeas petitions for scientific testing must be filed in the convicting court; Lincoln County lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Bailey announced a retroactive constitutional rule entitling Hill to relief | Hill: Bailey construes "use" and is a new constitutional rule retroactively applicable | State: Bailey is a statutory/federal statutory interpretation, not a new constitutional rule; not retroactively applicable | Court: Rejected Hill’s reliance on Bailey; Bailey is a statutory decision and does not create a new constitutional rule |
| Whether the Lincoln County court could grant audita querela/coram nobis relief after affirmance | Hill: Sought coram nobis/audita querela in Lincoln County without permission from this court | State: Coram nobis must be filed in trial court that entered conviction and only after this court grants permission following appeal | Court: Lincoln County lacked authority to entertain coram nobis; petition must be filed in trial court with this court’s permission |
| Procedural sufficiency and appealability | Hill: Multiple pro se motions and belated-appeal requests; argues access/due process | State: Dismiss appeal as clearly without merit and moot motions | Court: Appeal dismissed as clearly unmeritorious; motions and petition moot; dissent argued dismissal on merits improper because venue defense was not pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 325 Ark. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (Ark. 1996) (affirming Hill’s Grant County capital-murder conviction)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (statutory construction of "use" of a firearm; not a constitutional rule)
- Gray-Bey v. United States, 209 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 2000) (treating Bailey as a statutory decision rather than a new constitutional rule)