RONALD DUNAHUE v. WENDY KELLEY
2018 Ark. 4
| Ark. | 2018Background
- Reginald Dunahue, incarcerated in a Lee County unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a pro se habeas petition in Lincoln County Circuit Court alleging prosecutorial misconduct, perjured testimony, due-process violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Lincoln County Circuit Court dismissed the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction over Dunahue (who was held in Lee County) and that the claims were not cognizable in habeas.
- Dunahue appealed the dismissal and moved for leave to file a nonconforming belated brief; the Court declined to consider the brief because it had been returned as nonconforming by the Criminal Justice Coordinator’s office.
- The majority dismissed the appeal as one that could not succeed, holding that a habeas petition to obtain a prisoner’s release must be directed to the court with custody and the person who holds the prisoner, so Lincoln County lacked personal jurisdiction to issue a returnable writ for a prisoner held in Lee County.
- The majority found the appeal frivolous to proceed and denied the motion as moot; Justice Hart dissented, arguing the Court improperly dismissed the appeal without resolving the motion to accept the nonconforming brief and raising access-to-court and equal-protection concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lincoln County had jurisdiction to issue a habeas writ to release a prisoner held in Lee County | Dunahue contended his habeas claims merited review in Lincoln County | The State/court argued habeas for release must be directed to the custodian in the county of incarceration | Held: Lincoln County lacked personal jurisdiction over Lee County custodians; petition properly brought where prisoner is held |
| Whether the habeas claims were cognizable in habeas proceedings | Dunahue argued prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, due-process violations, and ineffective assistance are reviewable | Court found claims not cognizable in that habeas filing in that court and/or could not be remedied by a writ from Lincoln County | Held: Claims not actionable via Lincoln County habeas petition in this posture |
| Whether the appeal could proceed despite a nonconforming pro se brief returned by the Criminal Justice Coordinator | Dunahue argued his brief should be accepted or he be allowed to correct defects; he alleged good-faith compliance efforts | The Court treated the returned brief as not before it and concluded the appeal could not succeed on the merits | Held: Appeal dismissed as one in which appellant cannot prevail; motion to accept brief moot |
| Whether dismissal violated access-to-courts or equal-protection principles given procedural handling of pro se incarcerated filings | Dunahue (in dissent) argued dismissal denied due process and equal protection because procedural deficiencies could have been cured and coordinator’s handling impacted access | Majority implicitly held procedural defects and jurisdictional bar justified dismissal without further accommodation | Held: Dissent would have allowed consideration of brief and cautioned against denying incarcerated litigant appellate access; majority disagreed and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Lipe, 257 Ark. 1015 (Ark. 1975) (writ of habeas corpus must be directed to the person in whose custody the petitioner is detained)
- Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321 (Ark. 1991) (a circuit court lacks personal jurisdiction to issue and make returnable before itself a writ to release a prisoner held in another county)