Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26

Appellant George E. Tolefree pleaded guilty to rape in 2007, was sentenced as a habitual offender to 180 months, and remains incarcerated.
In 2013 Tolefree, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court challenging his conviction and sentence.
He asserted multiple grounds: he did not voluntarily waive counsel; the informational statement failed to indicate habitual-offender status or cite statutes; the sentence violated Ark. Const. art. 2 § 10; and the trial court failed to comply with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.4 and 24.6 during the plea.
The circuit court denied the petition as conclusory and failing to state a basis for habeas relief; it did not hold a hearing.
Tolefree appealed and moved for leave to file a belated reply brief; the Supreme Court denied the motion and affirmed the denial of the habeas petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea waiver of counsel was voluntary	Tolefree: waiver was not voluntary	State: allegations are conclusory and do not show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity	Denied — conclusory claim insufficient for habeas relief
Adequacy of the informational statement (failure to state habitual-offender status / statutes)	Tolefree: information was defective and thus invalid	State: sufficiency of charging instrument is not jurisdictional and must be raised before or at trial; plea waives such defects	Denied — challenge is nonjurisdictional and waived by guilty plea
Legality of sentence under Ark. Const. art. 2 § 10	Tolefree: sentence violated constitutional provision	State: claim is conclusory and does not show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction	Denied — conclusory, could have been raised earlier or in Rule 37.1 proceeding
Compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.4 / 24.6 and right to hearing on habeas petition	Tolefree: trial court failed required procedures; circuit court erred by not holding a hearing	State: no probable cause shown; hearing not required when petition fails to show probable cause or facial invalidity	Denied — no probable cause shown; no hearing required; habeas not substitute for Rule 37.1 or direct appeal

Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 873 S.W.2d 524 (habeas is proper only when conviction is facially invalid or court lacked jurisdiction)
Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (no hearing required on habeas absent probable cause)
George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (statutory habeas scheme contemplates hearing only if writ issued)
Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421, 938 S.W.2d 843 (defects in charging instrument are not jurisdictional and must be raised before trial)
Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (habeas is not a vehicle to re-litigate issues that could be raised on direct appeal or Rule 37.1)
Rickenbacker v. Norris, 361 Ark. 291, 206 S.W.3d 220 (claims of ineffective assistance of counsel belong in Rule 37.1 proceedings, not habeas)