MICHAEL LEE GARRISON v. WENDY KELLEY, DIR.
2018 Ark. 8
Ark.2018Background
- Michael Lee Garrison, pro se, filed a habeas petition alleging the judgment-and-commitment order was facially invalid because the trial court gave incorrect jury instructions about parole eligibility and felony class, causing an unlawful life sentence.
- He argued the court told the jury he "could be eligible for parole after serving one-third or one-sixth" under a new law, which he claims misled the jury and affected sentencing.
- Garrison was convicted of aggravated robbery (Class Y felony) and sentenced to life imprisonment; that conviction and sentence were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition for failure to allege facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and for failing to show probable cause; it denied an evidentiary hearing.
- The appellate majority dismissed Garrison’s appeal as clearly without merit because he failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; a dissent argued the court prematurely dismissed the appeal before the appellant filed his brief or obtained the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction on parole eligibility rendered judgment "facially invalid" | Garrison: trial court told jury an incorrect parole rule, misleading jury and making judgment facially illegal | State: Parole-eligibility misstatements are trial error, not facial invalidity; Garrison was sentenced to life and not parole-eligible | Held: Instructional error does not make judgment facially invalid; habeas unavailable for parole-eligibility issues |
| Whether trial court instructed on wrong felony class (C or D) so judgment is facially invalid | Garrison: colloquy showed instructions for Class C/D, and jury could not impose life for those classes, so judgment is flawed | State: Record shows jury received Y-felony instructions; any colloquy was outside jury hearing and is trial error | Held: No facial invalidity; record shows proper instructions to jury; claim is trial error |
| Whether Garrison made the required probable-cause showing to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Ark. Code § 16-112-103 | Garrison: requested evidentiary hearing to develop claim of facial invalidity | State: Garrison did not plead facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction nor present affidavit/evidence of probable cause | Held: Garrison failed to show probable cause; circuit court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing |
| Procedural propriety of dismissing appeal before appellant files brief/obtains record (dissent) | Garrison (dissent): dismissal before brief/record deprives appellant of appellate process and access to courts | State/Majority: Appeal may be dismissed when it is clear the appellant cannot prevail; record shows no basis for habeas relief | Held: Majority dismissed appeal as meritless; dissent argued premature denial of appellate process |
Key Cases Cited
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (habeas proper only where judgment facially invalid or trial court lacked jurisdiction)
- Noble v. Norris, 243 S.W.3d 260 (habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief)
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (standard of review for circuit court denial of habeas: clearly erroneous)
- Birchett v. State, 795 S.W.2d 53 (trial errors must be raised on direct appeal; habeas not to correct trial errors)
- Blevins v. Norris, 722 S.W.2d 573 (habeas does not extend to parole-eligibility questions)
- Mackey v. Lockhart, 819 S.W.2d 702 (failure to show probable cause bars evidentiary hearing on habeas)
- Garrison v. State, 893 S.W.2d 763 (prior direct appeal affirming conviction and life sentence)