Tucker v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 449

Robert Earl Tucker, Jr. was convicted by a jury of capital murder in 1997 for the stabbing death of a fellow inmate and sentenced to life without parole; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2013 Tucker, then incarcerated in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Jefferson County Circuit Court challenging trial rulings and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition for failure to state a claim and declared the filing a “strike” under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-68-607.
Tucker appealed, reasserting his trial-error and ineffective-assistance claims and challenging the circuit court’s order (its wording, definitions, and treatment as a strike).
The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the habeas petition alleged facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of trial-court jurisdiction (the limited bases for habeas relief) and whether the strike designation was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas petition alleged facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction	Tucker argued numerous trial errors and constitutional claims rendered conviction invalid	State argued petitioner failed to plead facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and offered no probable-cause showing	Court held Tucker did not show jurisdictional defect or facial invalidity; dismissal affirmed
Whether habeas is proper vehicle for trial-error claims	Tucker contended voir dire/trial rulings warranted habeas relief	State argued trial errors are not cognizable in habeas and belong on direct appeal	Court held mere trial error is not a basis for habeas relief
Whether ineffective-assistance claims may be raised in habeas	Tucker asserted counsel was ineffective on multiple grounds	State argued ineffective-assistance claims belong in a Rule 37 postconviction petition, not habeas	Court held ineffective-assistance claims are outside habeas scope; should be raised under Rule 37
Whether petition properly counted as a “strike” under § 16-68-607	Tucker argued the order mischaracterized his requests and improperly labeled the filing as a strike	State argued petition failed to state a claim, so § 16-68-607 applied	Court held petition failed to state a claim; strike designation was proper

Tucker v. State, 336 Ark. 244, 983 S.W.2d 956 (1999) (affirming appellant’s conviction)
Sanders v. Straughn, 2014 Ark. 312, 439 S.W.3d 1 (per curiam) (standard for reversing denial of habeas relief)
Bryant v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 287 (per curiam) (habeas proper only for facially invalid judgments or lack of jurisdiction)
Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (per curiam) (statutory pleading and probable-cause requirements for habeas petitions)
McArty v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 257 (per curiam) (petition failing to state a claim may constitute a § 16-68-607 strike)