Hubbard v. Hobbs
2014 Ark. 527
Ark.2014Background
- Hubbard was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- In November 2013 Hubbard filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County Circuit Court where he was incarcerated.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim and designated the dismissal as a strike under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
- Hubbard appeals the circuit court’s dismissal, arguing actual innocence, sufficiency of the evidence, and lack of jurisdiction due to speedy-trial issues, plus ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Supreme Court reviews habeas petitions only for facial validity of the judgment or lack of circuit court jurisdiction; other trial-error claims are generally not cognizable in habeas.
- The court holds Hubbard failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction, and thus affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas dismissal lacked jurisdiction or facial invalidity | Hubbard argues facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction warrants relief. | Hubbard did not demonstrate facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction. | No; dismissal proper for lack of facial invalidity or jurisdiction. |
| Whether actual innocence or Act 1780 claims were properly raised | Actual innocence under Act 1780 was not properly invoked in the petition. | Act 1780 procedures required; petition did not follow them. | Not cognizable; Act 1780 not invoked in petition, so no relief. |
| Whether speedy-trial or trial-errors are cognizable in habeas | Speedy-trial violation and trial-errors warrant habeas relief. | These issues are not cognizable in habeas petitions. | Not cognizable; arguments should have been raised earlier or in postconviction relief. |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims are cognizable in habeas | Counsel's failure to move for dismissal due to speedy-trial issues constitutes ineffective assistance. | Ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas and raised for first time on appeal. | Not cognizable; denied on procedural grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Girley v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 447 (Ark. (per curiam) (2012)) (habeas proper where judgment invalid on its face or lack of jurisdiction)
- Abernathy v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 335 (Ark. (per curiam) (2011)) (habeas standard; lack of jurisdiction and facial validity)
- Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (Ark. (per curiam) (2013)) (Act 1780 procedures; pleading requirements)
- Murry v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 64 (Ark. (per curiam) (2013)) (Act 1780; probable-cause standard)
- Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 455 (Ark. (per curiam) (2013)) (claims raised for first time on appeal not reviewed)
- Holliday v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 408 (Ark. (per curiam) (2014)) (ineffective-assistance claims not cognizable in habeas)
- McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 361 (Ark. (per curiam) (2012)) (due-process and trial-error claims not reviewable in habeas)
- Craig v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 218 (Ark. (per curiam) (2012)) (sufficiency of evidence and admissibility not cognizable in habeas)
- Rodgers v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 443 (Ark. (per curiam) (2011)) (speedy-trial issue not cognizable in habeas)
- Tarkington v. Norris, 2012 Ark. 147 (Ark. (per curiam) (2012)) (habeas proceedings limited scope)
- Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315 (Ark. (per curiam) (2005)) (habeas scope; facial validity required)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219 (Ark. (per curiam) (2006)) (habeas limitations; record review confined to face of commitment)