Hundley v. Hobbs
2015 Ark. 70
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Hundley was convicted in Arkansas of capital-felony murder (judgment entered 1980) and was seventeen at the time of the offense; he is serving life without parole.
- Hundley was transferred to and is incarcerated in a New Jersey facility under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC) pursuant to a contract between Arkansas and New Jersey executed by ADC Director Ray Hobbs.
- Hundley filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Jefferson County, Arkansas, arguing Miller and Graham invalidated mandatory juvenile life terms and that Hobbs remained his custodian because the ICC/Contract left him under Arkansas jurisdiction.
- The Jefferson County Circuit Court dismissed the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to issue a returnable writ because Hundley was physically detained in New Jersey.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court majority reversed, holding that under the ICC and the Contract Hobbs (ADC Director) is the person in whose custody Hundley is detained for habeas purposes and that the writ may be made returnable in Jefferson County.
- The dissent argued this decision departs from settled Arkansas precedent that custody means physical custody and would require the petition also be directed to the immediate (out‑of‑state) custodian to be returnable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jefferson County may issue a writ and make it returnable there when petitioner is confined in another state under the ICC | Hundley: ICC/Contract keeps him under Arkansas jurisdiction; Hobbs (ADC Director headquartered in Jefferson County) controls his location, so writ may be directed to Hobbs and be returnable in Jefferson County | State/Hobbs: Physical custody is in New Jersey; circuit court lacks jurisdiction to make the writ returnable in Jefferson County | Court: ICC and Contract mean Arkansas retains jurisdiction and Hobbs is the person "in whose custody" Hundley is detained for habeas purposes; writ may be returnable in Jefferson County |
| How to construe "person in whose custody the prisoner is detained" in habeas statutes | Hundley: Includes the sending‑state official/agency that controls inmate placement under the ICC/Contract | State: Statutory construction and precedent limit that phrase to the person with physical custody | Court: Interprets the phrase to include the sending‑state custodian (Hobbs) when ICC/Contract give him control over detention location |
| Effect of ICC and the Contract on habeas jurisdiction and rights | Hundley: ICC/Contract preserves sending‑state jurisdiction, delivery/retaking rights, and legal rights as if confined in Arkansas; thus habeas relief may be pursued in Arkansas | State: Transfer to receiving state removes the prisoner (and immediate custodian) from Arkansas courts' territorial custody | Court: ICC/Contract supplement ordinary analysis; transferred inmates remain under sending‑state jurisdiction and retain sending‑state rights, supporting Arkansas forum |
| Precedential limits (state case law addressing out‑of‑state transfers) | Hundley: Federal and other‑state cases (e.g., Oregon, Nevada) support sending‑state jurisdiction under interstate compacts | State: Prior Arkansas per curiam decisions holding out‑of‑state transfers defeat returnable writs (e.g., Bell v. Hobbs) | Court: Distinguishes Bell as not addressing ICC effect; follows persuasive out‑of‑state authorities and holds ICC controls outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding mandatory life‑without‑parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Lipe, 257 Ark. 1015 (1975) ("person in whose custody" construed as person having physical custody)
- Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or. 91 (2008) (ICC transfer does not moot habeas petition; sending state retains jurisdiction and rights)
- Boatwright v. Director, Department of Prisons, 109 Nev. 318 (1993) (under interstate compact, inmate remains in custody of sending‑state director and may pursue habeas in sending state)
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (habeas jurisdiction over custodian may be based on agency contacts, not merely physical presence)
- Strait v. Laird, 406 U.S. 341 (1972) (service on custodian may support habeas jurisdiction when agency relationships exist)