Morgan v. State, 2017 Ark. 57

Background

Petitioner Jeffery D. Morgan filed a habeas corpus petition in Lee County Circuit Court challenging sentencing enhancements under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(b); the circuit court denied relief on May 23, 2016.
Morgan sought reconsideration and extensions of time; he filed a notice of appeal after the 30‑day appeal period elapsed and then moved in the Supreme Court for leave to proceed with a belated appeal.
The Supreme Court declined to reach timeliness because it found the habeas claims lacked merit on the merits.
Morgan raised five claims: (1) § 5-4-501(b) is unconstitutionally vague as to “violent crime”; (2) out-of-state convictions were impermissibly used to enhance his sentence; (3) facial invalidity due to statutory cross-reference to § 5-4-501(d); (4) he was denied a non-jury hearing on prior-conviction classification; and (5) at least one prior conviction used was not a qualifying violent crime.
The Court explained habeas relief is proper only for facially invalid judgments or lack of trial-court jurisdiction (or actual-innocence claims under Act 1780), and concluded Morgan’s claims did not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction.
Because Morgan’s life sentence for kidnapping was within the statutory range and the other enhancements were lawful under the statute’s structure, the Court dismissed his motion for leave to proceed with a belated appeal as meritless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	Morgan contends his postjudgment motions tolled the 30‑day appeal period so his later notice was timely.	State contends appeal timing rules control and the notice was untimely; Court did not need to reach timeliness because claims were meritless.	Court declined to decide timeliness because petition lacks merit; motion dismissed.
Cognizability in habeas — facial invalidity / jurisdiction	Morgan argues enhancements rendered his sentence illegal/facially invalid.	State argues Morgan failed to allege facts showing facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; many claims are trial‑error not cognizable in habeas.	Court held Morgan did not show the judgment was facially invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; claims not cognizable.
Vagueness of habitual‑offender statute (§ 5‑4‑501(b))	Morgan argues § 5‑4‑501(b) and its references to (c)/(d) are unconstitutionally vague as to what constitutes a violent felony.	State points to statute language and controlling precedent rejecting vagueness challenge.	Court rejected vagueness challenge, citing prior decisions holding similar language not unconstitutionally vague.
Use of out‑of‑state priors and classification of priors for enhancement	Morgan contends some out‑of‑state and other priors do not qualify as violent felonies and thus cannot be used to enhance.	State and Court note § 5‑4‑501(b) permits enhancement based on four or more prior felonies not enumerated in (c)/(d); the listed priors fit (b) criteria even if not enumerated as violent felonies.	Court held the listed priors satisfied § 5‑4‑501(b) criteria; even accepting some priors weren’t listed violent felonies, Morgan did not show an illegal sentence or facial invalidity.

Key Cases Cited

Morgan v. State, 359 Ark. 168, 195 S.W.3d 889 (affirming underlying convictions) (background on petitioner’s prior appeal)
Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2015) (habeas proper where judgment facially invalid or circuit court lacks jurisdiction)
Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (subject‑matter jurisdiction relates to validity of sentence)
Taylor v. State, 354 Ark. 450, 125 S.W.3d 174 (illegal or void sentence implicates subject‑matter jurisdiction and is reviewable by habeas)
Walden v. State, 433 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2014) (treating illegal sentence as jurisdictional issue)