Hill v. State
2014 Ark. 420
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Jessie Hill, convicted in 1995 of capital murder (Grant County) and first-degree murder (Ouachita County); sentences: life and 720 months; Hill’s capital-murder conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- On October 9, 2012 Hill (pro se, incarcerated in Jefferson County) filed a pleading treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Jefferson County circuit court.
- The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition for failure to state a claim and designated the dismissal a “strike” under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
- Hill asserted prosecutorial and police misconduct, due-process violations, juror bias, lack of probable cause, insufficient evidence, and actual innocence; on appeal he also raised ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time.
- The court treated Hill’s claims as trial-error claims not cognizable in habeas because they did not allege facial invalidity of the commitment or lack of jurisdiction, and Hill had not proceeded under Act 1780 for an actual-innocence claim nor filed in the convicting courts.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the dismissal, finding Hill failed to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity of the commitment order, and declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jefferson County habeas petition states a claim for relief | Hill alleged prosecutorial/police misconduct, due-process violations, juror bias, lack of probable cause, insufficiency, and actual innocence | State argued claims are trial error or otherwise not cognizable in habeas; Hill failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction | Dismissed: claims are not cognizable in habeas; no facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect shown |
| Whether Hill properly asserted actual-innocence relief | Hill claimed actual innocence in petition | State noted Hill did not proceed under Act 1780 nor file in the convicting courts as required | Denied: Act 1780 not invoked and petition filed in wrong court; actual-innocence route unavailable |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim may be considered on appeal | Hill raised ineffective assistance for first time on appeal | State argued appellate courts do not address issues not raised below | Not considered: new claim not addressed because not raised below |
| Whether dismissal should be designated a "strike" under Ark. law | N/A (procedural) | State treated dismissal as appropriate under statutes for frivolous/failure-to-state claims | Affirmed: dismissal properly designated a strike under § 16-68-607 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 325 Ark. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (Ark. 1996) (affirming Hill’s capital-murder conviction)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2006) (burden on habeas petitioner to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity)
- Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2005) (no basis for writ where commitment facially valid and court had jurisdiction)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (Ark. 2013) (habeas inquiry limited to face of commitment; Act 1780 procedures for actual-innocence claims)
- Girley v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 447 (Ark. 2012) (writ proper only when judgment invalid on its face or court lacked jurisdiction)