Rayford v. Kelley
2016 Ark. 462
Ark.2016Background
- Larry Rayford was convicted of capital murder in 1994 and sentenced to life without parole; this court affirmed the conviction in Rayford v. State.
- Rayford filed multiple postconviction challenges over the years (Rule 37.1, coram nobis, habeas) without success.
- In April 2016 Rayford, pro se and incarcerated in Lincoln County, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court seeking release.
- Rayford alleged the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the felony information omitted the word "he," arguing this omission failed to allege the causation element of capital murder.
- The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition for failure to state a ground for the writ; Rayford appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of the word "he" in the information deprived the trial court of jurisdiction | Rayford: omission failed to allege the statutory causation element, so information was jurisdictionally defective | State: information set forth principal statutory language and facts; omission was a minor/formal defect and not jurisdictional | Court: Omission was a minor error that did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction; habeas claim fails |
| Whether a claim of defective charging instrument is cognizable in habeas | Rayford: substantive defect in wording rendered judgment facially invalid | State: charging-form defects that are trial error are not jurisdictional and must be raised at trial | Court: Sufficiency-of-information claims are generally trial error, not jurisdictional; not cognizable in habeas unless they show facial invalidity or illegal sentence |
| Whether habeas relief available without alleging actual innocence under Act 1780 | Rayford: pursued conventional habeas (did not proceed under Act 1780) | State: petitioner must plead facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and show probable cause of illegal detention | Court: Rayford failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; habeas unavailable |
| Whether habeas can be used to retry claims of trial error | Rayford: sought relief via habeas on form-of-information issue | State: habeas is not a vehicle to retry cases or raise non-jurisdictional trial errors | Court: Habeas does not permit retrying trial errors; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rayford v. State, 326 Ark. 656, 934 S.W.2d 496 (affirming conviction)
- Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364 (standard of review for habeas dismissal)
- Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (habeas proper when judgment invalid on its face or trial court lacked jurisdiction)
- Sanders v. Straughn, 439 S.W.3d 1 (charging-instrument sufficiency is not usually a jurisdictional issue in habeas)