Newton v. State
2013 Ark. 320
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Arthur Lee Newton was convicted in Drew County (2011) of sexual indecency with a child and second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 288 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- In 2013, Newton filed a pro se postconviction petition in Lee County (where he was incarcerated), attacking his Drew County convictions on ineffective assistance, prosecutorial leading questions, and signing a sex-offender form pre-conviction.
- The Lee County circuit court denied the petition. Newton appealed that denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court and moved for an extension to file his brief-in-chief.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether the appeal could proceed and whether the Lee County court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
- The Court concluded the petition had been filed in a court without jurisdiction because postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 must be filed in the court that entered the conviction.
- The Court dismissed the appeal as meritless and denied the extension motion as moot. (Trial-error claims should have been raised in the trial court.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Lee County court had jurisdiction to hear Newton’s postconviction petition | Newton argued his pro se petition in Lee County was a proper vehicle to attack his conviction and asserted ineffective assistance, prosecutorial error, and other defects | State argued postconviction relief must be pursued in the court that entered the conviction (Drew County) and that the Lee County court lacked jurisdiction | Court held Lee County lacked jurisdiction; Rule 37.1 petitions must be filed in the sentencing court, so appeal cannot succeed |
| Whether the appeal could proceed despite procedural defects | Newton sought an extension to file his brief-in-chief to pursue the appeal on the merits | State argued appeal was futile because of jurisdictional and procedurally defective claims | Court dismissed the appeal as clearly unable to prevail and rendered the extension motion moot |
| Whether trial errors and prosecutorial questioning could be raised in this collateral petition | Newton asserted prosecutorial leading questions and trial errors warranted relief in his petition | State noted trial error should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal rather than in a collateral, misfiled petition | Court noted trial-error claims are for the trial court and should have been addressed at trial or on direct appeal; they are not properly raised in the misfiled postconviction petition |
| Whether a pro se label changes the petition’s treatment under Rule 37.1 | Newton’s pro se status and alternate labeling of the pleading as civil should permit its consideration | State maintained that substance controls: a collateral attack on a judgment is governed by Rule 37.1 regardless of label or pro se status | Court held that regardless of label, a collateral attack is governed by Rule 37.1 and must be filed in the convicting court |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State, 2012 Ark. 27 (per curiam) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief will not proceed if appellant cannot prevail)
- Riddell v. State, 2012 Ark. 11 (per curiam) (same)
- Holliday v. State, 2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam) (pleadings that collaterally attack a judgment are governed by Rule 37.1)
- Evans v. State, 2012 Ark. 375 (per curiam) (same principle)
- Nickelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 252 (per curiam) (trial error should be raised at trial or on direct appeal, not in collateral petitions)