Mitchell v. Kelley
2016 Ark. 326
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Denver Mitchell, convicted of first-degree murder in Greene County, previously lost direct appeal and postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1; a belated appeal was dismissed for a deficient abstract.
- While incarcerated in Lee County, Mitchell filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of his confinement.
- Mitchell raised three grounds: (1) the judgment is facially invalid because trial/appellate counsel were ineffective; (2) additional ineffective-assistance allegations; and (3) actual innocence.
- The circuit court denied habeas relief, finding Mitchell’s claims were either ineffective-assistance or claims of innocence, neither of which is cognizable in a non-Act-1780 habeas proceeding.
- Mitchell argued on appeal that he established probable cause of facial invalidity, that attachments proved actual innocence, and that Martinez/Trevino entitle him to counsel for his Rule 37 proceedings.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding none of Mitchell’s claims were within the proper scope of habeas corpus and the denial was not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell pleaded facial invalidity of judgment to support habeas | Mitchell: judgment is facially invalid due to ineffective trial/appellate counsel | State: ineffective-assistance claims do not render judgment facially invalid for habeas | Denied — ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas and do not show facial invalidity |
| Whether Mitchell’s attachments show actual innocence supporting habeas | Mitchell: evidence attachments establish actual innocence and probable cause | State: actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are not cognizable in non-Act-1780 habeas | Denied — actual-innocence claims are not available in ordinary habeas (not filed under Act 1780) |
| Whether habeas is the proper forum to raise ineffective-assistance claims | Mitchell: counsel failures should be considered in habeas because they invalidate the judgment | State: ineffective-assistance claims require factfinding beyond facial review and belong in Rule 37 or direct review | Denied — such claims are factual and not proper in habeas proceedings |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino required appointment of counsel for Mitchell’s Rule 37 proceedings | Mitchell: lack of counsel for Rule 37 entitles him to relief or habeas review | State: Martinez/Trevino do not mandate appointment of counsel under Arkansas law | Denied — Arkansas precedent rejects Martinez/Trevino as requiring appointed counsel; absence of counsel does not make judgment facially invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364 (standard for appellate review of habeas findings)
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 503 (habeas proper only for facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Gardner v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 346, 439 S.W.3d 663 (actual-innocence/sufficiency claims not cognizable in non-Act-1780 habeas)
- McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 585, 840 S.W.2d 166 (ineffective-assistance claims not cognizable in habeas)
- Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (ineffective-assistance requires inquiry beyond facial validity)
- Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259 (Martinez/Trevino do not require appointment of counsel in Arkansas)