Hill v. State(1)
2013 Ark. 357
Ark.2013Background
- Jessie Hill, pro se, appealed the Ouachita County Circuit Court’s denial (2011 filing) of his motion under Act 1780 seeking postconviction scientific testing of the murder weapon (fingerprint testing) for his 1995 first-degree murder conviction.
- Hill filed a motion in this Court for an extension of time to submit his brief and then tendered a brief; the Court found the extension motion moot because it dismissed the appeal.
- Act 1780 (as amended by Act 2250) allows postconviction habeas relief/testing where new scientific evidence may show actual innocence, but it imposes predicate requirements, including timeliness rules for motions filed more than 36 months after conviction.
- Because Hill’s motion was filed more than fifteen years after judgment, he carried the burden to rebut the statute’s presumption against untimeliness; he failed to do so.
- Hill asserted that advanced latent-print technology existed and alleged prior ballistic testing, but he did not show that fingerprint testing was unavailable at trial or that any new technology would be substantially more probative than prior testing.
- The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Act 1780, and this Court accordingly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the extension motion was moot.
Issues
| Issue | Hill’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Act 1780 to order testing filed >36 months after conviction | Hill argued advanced fingerprint technology now permits probative testing | State argued Hill failed to rebut the presumption against untimeliness required for late petitions | Held: Hill failed to rebut presumption; trial court lacked jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the asserted “new technology” was substantially more probative than trial-era testing | Hill alleged newly available latent-print analysis methods would produce useful results | State noted Hill didn’t show prior testing was inadequate or that new methods would be more probative | Held: Allegations conclusory; Hill did not show new technology would be more probative |
| Whether this Court should consider Hill’s motion for extension of time after he tendered a brief | Hill sought more time and then filed a brief | State had no response; jurisdictional defect remained | Held: Extension motion moot because appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Strong v. State, 372 S.W.3d 758 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam) (discussing standards for appeals from denial of postconviction relief and related principles)