Meraz v. State
2013 Ark. 419
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Jerome Meraz pleaded guilty in 2008 to first-degree stalking, kidnapping, residential burglary, and misdemeanor theft in Carroll County, Arkansas; sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate 720 months.
- In 2012 Meraz filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Carroll County Circuit Court under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-101 et seq.
- The Carroll County Circuit Court denied the habeas petition; Meraz appealed and moved this Court to appoint counsel.
- Meraz’s filing and prison address showed he was incarcerated in Lexington, Oklahoma, not in Carroll County, at the time he filed the petition.
- Because Meraz was not in custody in Carroll County, the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction to issue a habeas writ returnable to itself, so the appellate court declined to reach the merits and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Carroll County Circuit Court had jurisdiction to consider Meraz’s habeas petition | Meraz filed a habeas petition in Carroll County seeking relief from his conviction; implicitly contends court could hear it | State argued court lacked personal jurisdiction because Meraz was incarcerated outside Carroll County when he filed | Court held the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction and therefore could not grant relief; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the appeal should proceed despite pro se status and request for appointed counsel | Meraz moved for appointment of counsel to pursue appeal | State opposed continuation because jurisdictional defect made appeal futile | Court denied appointment as moot because appellant could not prevail; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the court should address merits of habeas claims despite jurisdictional defect | Meraz sought review of circuit court’s denial on merits | State contended merits were moot given jurisdictional defect | Court declined to address merits due to lack of personal jurisdiction |
| Proper forum for habeas petitions invoking Act 1780 (actual innocence evidence) | Not invoked here | State noted Act 1780 petitions are filed in convicting court, otherwise petitions go to custody county | Court noted Act 1780 was not invoked and reaffirmed proper venue rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (per curiam) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief will not proceed where appellant cannot prevail)
- Wilencewicz v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 230 (per curiam) (habeas petitions are properly filed in custody county unless filed under Act 1780)
- Borum v. State, 2011 Ark. 415 (per curiam) (writ should be issued by court with personal jurisdiction over petitioner)
- State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Lipe, 257 Ark. 1015 (court lacked personal jurisdiction where petitioner was in another county)
- Johnson v. McClure, 228 Ark. 1081 (same principle regarding personal jurisdiction for habeas writs)
- State v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 397 (same principle regarding personal jurisdiction for habeas writs)
- Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321 (1991) (court may have subject-matter jurisdiction but not personal jurisdiction when petitioner is not in custody in that county)