Randall Thomas McArty v. State of Arkansas, 594 S.W.3d 54

In 1993 Randall Thomas McArty was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2018 McArty filed two pro se postconviction petitions: (1) an Act 1780 petition seeking new scientific testing (gunshot residue, DNA on casings and knife) and (2) a § 16-90-111 petition claiming an illegal sentence based on a juror nondisclosure.
The circuit court denied both petitions (same day); McArty appealed and the Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed both denials.
The Act 1780 petition was denied as untimely and, more critically, as not cognizable because the requested testing would not address identity of the perpetrator, which the Act requires.
The § 16-90-111 petition alleged a juror was related (fourth cousin to McArty, third cousin to his mother) and failed to disclose that relationship; the court held the sentence was within statutory limits and the juror relationship did not show implied bias to render the sentence facially illegal.
The Supreme Court affirmed both denials; it found Act 1780 relief unavailable because identity was not at issue and found no facial illegality or fundamental-error defect in the jury composition claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of Act 1780 testing	McArty: requested testing would show knife was in victim's hand and support actual-innocence/self-defense claim	State: Act 1780 limited to testing that addresses identity of perpetrator and requires predicate statutory elements	Court: Denied — identity was not at issue at trial, so Act 1780 does not provide relief; petition not cognizable under Act
Timeliness of Act 1780 petition and need for evidentiary hearing	McArty: showed excuses for delay and sought hearing	State: petition untimely and meritless on substantive grounds	Court: Did not reach timeliness because petition failed substantive Act 1780 predicate; denial of evidentiary hearing affirmed
§ 16-90-111 claim that sentence is illegal due to juror nondisclosure	McArty: juror failed to disclose blood relationship to witness and defendant; he did not consent to juror serving; thus verdict/jury not of twelve impartial jurors	State: sentence within statutory range; juror relationship (fourth cousin) does not establish statutory implied bias or fundamental error	Court: Denied — sentence not facially illegal; fourth-cousin relationship does not show implied bias or fundamental error to void judgment

Marshall v. State, 521 S.W.3d 456 (2017) (explaining Act 1780 statutory requirements for scientific-testing petitions)
McClinton v. State, 533 S.W.3d 578 (2017) (Act 1780 limits and identity requirement)
Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (2010) (standard of review for denial of postconviction relief)
Fischer v. State, 532 S.W.3d 40 (2017) (standard of review for § 16-90-111 petitions)
Martin v. State, 545 S.W.3d 763 (2018) (denial of evidentiary hearing on Act 1780 petitions)
Lee v. State, 532 S.W.3d 43 (2017) (denial of a twelve-person jury is fundamental error but actual bias differs from implied bias)
Swift v. State, 540 S.W.3d 288 (2018) (timing rules under Rule 37.2 govern postconviction petitions)
Lukach v. State, 548 S.W.3d 810 (2018) (facially illegal sentence standard for untimely petitions)
Cantrell v. State, 343 S.W.3d 591 (2009) (illegal sentence defined as one beyond court's authority)
Jackson v. State, 549 S.W.3d 346 (2018) (sentence within statutory maximum is generally not facially illegal)