Poland v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 401

Wayne Poland pleaded guilty in 2009 to multiple counts of rape, possession of child pornography, and failure to appear and received aggregate prison terms.
In April 2015 Poland filed a pro se habeas-corpus petition raising many claims (speedy-trial, ineffective assistance, involuntary plea, evidentiary issues, conditions of confinement, lack of law library, plea location, medical/dietary concerns).
The circuit court denied the habeas petition, concluding Poland did not assert that the judgment-and-commitment was facially invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.
Poland timely appealed and moved for an extension of time to file a brief and for appointment of counsel.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed whether Poland could possibly prevail on appeal; because his petition did not allege facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the appeal and found the motions moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief is proper because judgment is facially invalid or trial court lacked jurisdiction	Poland argued jurisdictional defect based on where/when he signed his plea and that a hearing may be needed	State argued Poland did not supply the plea documents or record to show facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect	Dismissed — Poland failed to provide the record or pleadings to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; appeal cannot proceed
Whether speedy-trial claims are cognizable in habeas	Poland asserted speedy-trial violations	State maintained speedy-trial is trial error not cognizable in habeas	Denied — speedy-trial claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings
Whether ineffective-assistance and evidentiary challenges (e.g., computer evidence/expert) support habeas relief	Poland alleged ineffective assistance and challenges to computer evidence/admission	State argued such claims are trial error and do not implicate facial invalidity or jurisdiction	Denied — ineffective-assistance and evidentiary claims are not cognizable in habeas proceedings
Whether plea was involuntary such that habeas relief is warranted	Poland argued plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made	State argued involuntary-plea allegations are trial error and do not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction	Denied — involuntary-plea claims are trial error and not grounds for habeas relief

Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (Ark. 2014) (standard for clearly erroneous circuit-court findings on habeas review)
Young v. Norris, 226 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. 2006) (petitioner’s burden to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and to make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause)
Cloird v. State, 99 S.W.3d 419 (Ark. 2003) (appellate court cannot determine jurisdictional defect absent record support)
McConaughy v. Lockhart, 840 S.W.2d 166 (Ark. 1992) (ineffective-assistance claims not cognizable in habeas)
Woodson v. Hobbs, 467 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2015) (reiterating that ineffective-assistance claims are not habeas grounds)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial framework; cited to explain speedy-trial claims are trial error)
Crockett v. State, 669 S.W.2d 896 (Ark. 1984) (guilty plea constitutes the defendant’s trial)
Mackey v. Lockhart, 819 S.W.2d 702 (Ark. 1991) (trial error claims not within habeas purview)
Griffis v. Hobbs, 458 S.W.3d 703 (Ark. 2015) (habeas not a vehicle to challenge sufficiency of the evidence)
Quezada v. Hobbs, 441 S.W.3d 910 (Ark. 2014) (dismissal where petitioner failed to meet burden to show habeas grounds)