Hill v. State
2016 Ark. 258
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Appellant Johnnie L. Hill (pro se) sought relief under Act 1780 (postconviction writ of habeas corpus based on new scientific evidence) challenging his 1984 convictions for rape, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping and an aggregate 136-year sentence.
- Hill filed an Act 1780 petition more than thirty years after conviction, alleging generally that scientific evidence could prove his actual innocence and referencing withheld witness statements and advances in fingerprint identification.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for failing to meet Act 1780’s statutory prerequisites, including identifying specific evidence for testing and rebutting the statutory presumption against untimeliness.
- Hill appealed the dismissal and filed motions in this Court for a copy of the record, to supplement with an exhibit, and for an extension of time to file a brief.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the appeal as Hill could not prevail: his petition did not identify specific evidence to be tested, raised claims beyond the scope of Act 1780, and failed to rebut the presumption against untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill’s Act 1780 petition stated a claim entitling him to testing | Hill asserted new scientific evidence (generally) could prove his innocence and cited advances in fingerprint technology | State argued Hill failed to identify any specific physical evidence for testing or any new evidence meeting statutory criteria | Court held petition was insufficient: Hill failed to identify specific evidence or request testing as required by §16-112-202; petition dismissed |
| Whether petition improperly raised non-Act 1780 claims | Hill included allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, trial error, and ineffective assistance | State argued those claims are outside Act 1780’s limited scope (which is confined to scientific testing claims) | Court held Act 1780 petitions are limited to testing-related claims; non-testing claims are not cognizable under the Act |
| Whether Hill rebutted the presumption against timeliness (filed >36 months after judgment) | Hill cited new fingerprint equipment/procedures as grounds to overcome timeliness presumption | State argued Hill failed to show the new methods were substantially more probative, identify evidence to be tested, or otherwise meet exceptions | Court held Hill did not rebut the presumption: he identified no specific evidence, no theory showing new testing would be more probative, and thus failed the statutory timeliness exception |
| Whether the appeal should proceed despite procedural deficiencies | Hill sought appellate review and ancillary motions (record, exhibit, extension) | State maintained the dismissal was correct and the appeal could not succeed | Court dismissed the appeal and found ancillary motions moot because Hill could not prevail on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 285 Ark. 77, 685 S.W.2d 495 (affirming underlying convictions)
- Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (standard of review clarification referenced)
- Clemons v. State, 446 S.W.3d 619 (explaining §16-112-202 specificity and probative-value requirement for new testing)
- Darrough v. State, 439 S.W.3d 50 (holding petition without specific testing requests is without merit)