Muldrow v. Kelley
542 S.W.3d 856
| Ark. | 2018Background
- Appellant Michael D. Muldrow, an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, sought to proceed in forma pauperis to file a habeas petition in Lincoln County circuit court.
- His petition relied on Act 1780 (new scientific evidence) and also alleged prosecutorial misconduct and lack of jurisdiction/actual innocence challenging his Hempstead County conviction.
- The Lincoln County circuit court denied pauper status, finding the petition failed to plead a colorable cause of action: prosecutorial-misconduct claims are not cognizable in habeas, and Act 1780 petitions must be filed in the county of conviction.
- Muldrow appealed and moved for an extension to file his brief. The appeal presents review of the denial to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The majority affirmed the denial as the petition clearly failed to state a colorable cause of action; the extension motion was held moot. Justice Hart dissented, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the merits and should instead address the extension motion alone.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lincoln County court could entertain an Act 1780 habeas petition | Muldrow filed in Lincoln County despite conviction in Hempstead County; argued Act 1780 relief applies | Act 1780 petitions must be filed in the court where the conviction was entered | Court: Act 1780 claims must be filed in county of conviction; Lincoln County lacked jurisdiction for Act 1780 claims |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct supports habeas relief (outside Act 1780) | Muldrow alleged prosecutorial misconduct and actual innocence to void conviction | Prosecutorial-misconduct is trial error, not facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect; thus not cognizable in non-Act 1780 habeas | Court: Prosecutorial-misconduct claims do not support habeas relief outside Act 1780; not a colorable cause of action |
| Whether actual innocence (insufficiency of evidence) is cognizable outside Act 1780 | Muldrow asserted actual innocence as basis for the writ | Sufficiency/due-process claims are not cognizable in habeas unless brought under Act 1780 | Court: Actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are not cognizable outside Act 1780 |
| Whether denial of in forma pauperis was an abuse of discretion | Muldrow contended the court erred in denying pauper status | Circuit court found obvious defects in petition and no colorable claim; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; summary affirmance appropriate because petition clearly failed to state a colorable cause of action |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn v. Gallagher, 2017 Ark. 283 (standards for reviewing in forma pauperis determinations)
- Wood v. State, 2017 Ark. 290 (affirming summary disposition where petition lacked a colorable claim)
- Ashby v. State, 2017 Ark. 233 (same)
- Hundley v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 70 (jurisdictional rules for habeas petitions not under Act 1780)
- Dunahue v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 4 (personal jurisdiction over custodial officials for non-Act 1780 writs)
- Garrison v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 8 (prosecutorial misconduct is trial error, not basis for habeas relief outside Act 1780)
- Clay v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 294 (actual-innocence/sufficiency claims are due-process claims not cognizable in non-Act 1780 habeas)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (prosecutorial misconduct as trial error that does not constitute fundamental error)