Pennington v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 168

Frederick Pennington, Jr., an Arkansas Department of Correction inmate, appealed the denial of his pro se habeas petition to the Arkansas Supreme Court from Lee County Circuit Court.
Pennington pled guilty in 1978 as a juvenile to multiple counts (including first-degree murder) and received concurrent life sentences; this Court previously found the sentencing orders facially invalid and remanded for resentencing.
After resentencing in 2016 to an aggregate 840-month term, Pennington filed a habeas petition alleging actual innocence, coercion by counsel to plead guilty, denial of juvenile-transfer rights, Miller-based illegality of his original sentence, lack of appellate counsel earlier, and illegality of the resentencing (including entitlement to a flat discharge date).
Pennington did not attach the sentencing order(s) he challenged to his habeas petition or show a legal excuse for that omission; he also did not invoke Act 1780 for an actual-innocence claim.
The Lee County Circuit Court denied the petition for lack of probable cause, concluding the allegations were conclusory and failing to identify the specific order being challenged; Pennington appealed and moved to transfer to the Court of Appeals and for appointed counsel.
The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as without merit because Pennington failed to establish probable cause or a cognizable habeas claim; the pending motion was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pennington demonstrated probable cause for habeas relief based on facially illegal sentencing orders	Pennington argued his sentences were facially illegal (including Miller issues) and that resentencing was unlawful	State argued Petitioner failed to attach the challenged sentencing orders and thus did not show probable cause	Court: No probable cause—appeal dismissed
Whether an actual-innocence claim supported habeas without invoking Act 1780	Pennington asserted actual innocence	State argued actual-innocence claims require proceeding under Act 1780	Court: Claim not cognizable absent Act 1780 invocation
Whether challenge to validity of guilty plea is cognizable in habeas	Pennington contended plea was coerced	State argued plea-invalidity claims are not cognizable in habeas	Court: Plea challenge not cognizable in habeas
Whether resentencing orders were facially illegal or entered without jurisdiction	Pennington claimed resentencing produced illegal orders and entitlement to a youthful-offender discharge date	State argued no facts showed facial illegality or lack of jurisdiction; sentencing appeal pending	Court: Insufficient facts; habeas denial not clearly erroneous

Jefferson v. Kelley, 509 S.W.3d 626 (per curiam) (appeals of postconviction relief must have merit to proceed)
Early v. Hobbs, 467 S.W.3d 150 (per curiam) (standards for appellate review of habeas appeals)
Pennington v. Hobbs, 497 S.W.3d 186 (per curiam) (this Court previously found Pennington's original sentencing orders facially invalid and remanded)
Hobbs v. Hodge, 461 S.W.3d 704 (discussing statutory procedure requiring evidence of probable cause before habeas writ issues)
Gardner v. Hobbs, 439 S.W.3d 663 (burden on petitioner to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
Meny v. Norris, 13 S.W.3d 143 (probable-cause requirement and necessity of attaching the challenged order to the petition)