McArthur v. State
2019 Ark. 220
| Ark. | 2019Background
- Steven L. McArthur was convicted by a jury in 1991 of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2018 McArthur filed a pro se habeas petition raising multiple grounds: newly discovered affidavits/actual innocence, Brady and prosecutorial/sheriff misconduct, judicial misconduct, ineffective assistance (later abandoned on appeal), denial of second appointed counsel, waiver of death penalty, speedy-trial violation, and lack of law-library access.
- The circuit court denied the petition as untimely and without merit; McArthur appealed and also moved for default judgment.
- The circuit court and majority treated most claims as not cognizable in habeas because they do not attack the facial validity of the judgment or the trial court’s jurisdiction and therefore should have been raised on direct appeal or in postconviction proceedings.
- The majority affirmed dismissal and denied McArthur’s motion for default judgment; a single justice dissented, arguing the habeas statute expressly permits claims of actual innocence and that many claims merit merits resolution rather than procedural dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McArthur's claims are cognizable in habeas (facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction required) | McArthur contends newly discovered affidavits, actual innocence, Brady and misconduct claims justify habeas relief | State argues habeas is limited to facial invalidity of judgment, lack of jurisdiction, or properly pleaded actual-innocence claims under Act 1780; other claims belong on direct appeal or postconviction | Majority: Most claims are not cognizable in habeas because they do not implicate facial invalidity or jurisdiction; affirmed dismissal |
| Whether habeas may be used to relitigate actual-innocence / sufficiency claims | McArthur asserts affidavits show actual innocence and thus warrant habeas relief | State contends actual-innocence/sufficiency challenges are due-process claims not cognizable in habeas and belong in other remedies | Majority: Actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are not cognizable in habeas; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the conviction/sentence is illegal because judgment omits underlying aggravated-robbery conviction | McArthur argues the capital-murder judgment is illegal for lacking conviction of the underlying felony | State notes at the time (1991) one could not be separately convicted of both capital murder and underlying felony; judgment reflects law at the time and prescribes lawful sentence | Held: Judgment is facially valid; sentence (life without parole) is lawful; claim fails |
| Whether failure to hold a hearing on the habeas petition was error | McArthur contends the court should have held an evidentiary hearing | State argues statute does not mandate a hearing when probable cause is not shown | Held: No hearing required absent showing of probable cause; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- McArthur v. State, 309 Ark. 196 (affirming original conviction) (background direct-appeal decision)
- Garrison v. Kelley, 534 S.W.3d 136 (Ark. 2018) (standard that habeas is proper for facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2015) (habeas limited to facial invalidity of judgment or lack of jurisdiction)
- Walker v. State, 110 S.W.3d 752 (Ark. 2003) (at the time of the offense defendant could not be convicted of both capital murder and underlying felony)
- Stephenson v. Kelley, 544 S.W.3d 44 (Ark. 2018) (actual-innocence claims equate to sufficiency/due-process claims and are not cognizable in habeas)
- Muldrow v. Kelley, 542 S.W.3d 856 (Ark. 2018) (prosecutorial-misconduct allegations do not, by themselves, establish facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Williams v. Kelley, 521 S.W.3d 104 (Ark. 2017) (illegal-sentence and speedy-trial claims do not necessarily implicate jurisdiction for habeas relief)