Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. 41

Charles R. Sims, a Lee County inmate, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court challenging his conviction.
The circuit court denied the habeas petition; Sims appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and sought an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief.
Sims argued he would not have pled guilty if his attorney had correctly advised him about parole eligibility.
The State defended the denial, asserting the claim did not show jurisdictional defect or facial invalidity of the judgment and thus was not cognizable in habeas.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as meritless because the petition did not allege facts that would support issuance of a habeas writ.
The Court treated the parole-advice claim as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim (properly raised under Rule 37.1), not a habeas claim; dismissal rendered Sims’s motion moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief is proper where counsel allegedly misadvised about parole eligibility	Sims: counsel’s incorrect advice about parole made his guilty plea involuntary and entitles him to habeas relief	State: claim challenges counsel (ineffective assistance), not jurisdiction or facial validity of judgment; thus not cognizable in habeas	Dismissed — claim is ineffective-assistance in nature and not a basis for habeas relief
Whether petitioner showed facial invalidity of judgment or lack of trial-court jurisdiction	Sims: implied his plea was invalid due to counsel’s advice	State: no allegation or evidence that judgment is facially invalid or that court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction	Denied — petitioner failed to meet burden to show jurisdictional defect or facial invalidity
Whether appeal should proceed despite procedural posture (failure to state basis for writ)	Sims: sought extension to file brief (substantive claim as above)	State: appeal is without merit and should not proceed	Appeal dismissed as frivolous/without merit; extension motion moot
Proper procedural vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims	Sims: raised issue in habeas petition	State: such claims belong in Rule 37.1 postconviction proceedings	Court: agrees — Rule 37.1 is the proper remedy; habeas is not a substitute

Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 873 S.W.2d 524 (recognizes habeas relief proper when judgment is facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction)
Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (petitioner bears burden to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity and must provide probable-cause support)
Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (habeas is not a substitute for Rule 37.1; ineffective-assistance claims belong in Rule 37 proceedings)