Slocum v. State
2014 Ark. 178
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2012 Jacques Slocum was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, fleeing, and first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor; he received lengthy consecutive sentences and additional enhancements.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on direct appeal.
- Slocum filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the petition was not verified as required by Rule 37.1(c).
- The circuit court held a hearing, denied the petition, and Slocum appealed that denial to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court found on the record that Slocum could not prevail because his Rule 37.1 petition failed the verification requirement and therefore did not confer jurisdiction on the trial court.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied as moot Slocum’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 37.1 petition complied with Rule 37.1(c) verification requirements | Slocum argued his petition should be considered on the merits (ineffective assistance claim) | State argued the petition was not verified as Rule 37.1(c) requires and thus must be dismissed | Petition was unverified as required; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the unverified petition | Slocum proceeded as if the court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition | State maintained lack of verification deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction under Rule 37.1(d) | Circuit court lacked jurisdiction; appellate court likewise lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether the appeal from the Rule 37.1 denial could proceed | Slocum sought to appeal the denial and requested extension to file brief | State argued the appeal could not succeed given the jurisdictional/verification defect | Appeal dismissed as appellant could not prevail; motion for extension moot |
| Importance of verification requirement | Slocum implicitly downplayed the verification defect relative to merits | State emphasized verification prevents perjury and is substantive; noncompliance fatal | Verification is substantively required to prevent perjury; noncompliance is jurisdictional |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 (1980) (verification requirement prevents perjury and supports jurisdictional rules)