437 S.W.3d 685
Ark.2014Background
- Eddie Silver Watkins pled guilty in Hot Spring County to multiple counts of second-degree forgery in two consolidated cases and received aggregate sentences of 420 months in each case, to run concurrently with other cases.
- Watkins filed a pro se habeas petition in Hot Spring County claiming the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction because, he asserted, the forged checks were cashed in Garland County, not Hot Spring County.
- The circuit court denied habeas relief, finding Watkins possessed the checks in Hot Spring County (having copied account/routing numbers at the Hot Spring County Arbour Oaks) and that co-defendant cashed some checks in Hot Spring County.
- Watkins conceded the criminal scheme began at the Hot Spring County Arbour Oaks (he copied account and routing numbers there), then drove to Garland County to create and cash forged checks.
- The circuit court concluded, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that where a crime begins in one county and culminates in another, either county has jurisdiction under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-88-108(c).
- The court also noted that ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims tied to the guilty plea are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding and should be raised under Rule 37.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hot Spring County had territorial jurisdiction over Watkins' forgery convictions | Watkins: he lacked possession of the forged checks in Hot Spring County and cashing occurred in Garland County, so Hot Spring lacked jurisdiction | State: the criminal conduct began in Hot Spring County (copied account/routing numbers; possession/acts in Hot Spring) and under §16-88-108(c) jurisdiction lies in either county where offense occurred partly | Court: Affirmed jurisdiction; crime began in Hot Spring County and an offense spanning counties may be prosecuted in either county |
| Whether Watkins established probable cause of illegal detention to obtain habeas relief | Watkins: alleged facts aimed to show jurisdictional defect (checks not in Hot Spring) | State: court records and admissions show acts occurred in Hot Spring County; petitioner bears burden to show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity | Court: Watkins failed to meet burden; habeas relief properly denied |
| Whether challenges to the voluntariness/timeliness of the guilty plea or counsel’s performance are cognizable on habeas | Watkins: plea was rushed and counsel ineffective | State: such claims are not cognizable on habeas and must be raised under Rule 37.1 | Court: Ineffective-assistance and plea-related claims are not properly raised in habeas; Rule 37.1 is the remedy |
| Whether the court may affirm on alternate grounds different from those relied on below | Watkins: (reply argued State’s shifting theories) | State/Court: even if possession finding not reached, continuing course-of-conduct jurisdiction suffices | Court: Affirmed on alternative ground that the offense was a continuing course of conduct spanning counties, which confers jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Cloird v. State, 352 Ark. 190, 99 S.W.3d 419 (remedial construction of §16-88-108 and jurisdiction when offense spans counties)
- State v. Osborn, 345 Ark. 196, 45 S.W.3d 373 (same; jurisdiction for multi-county offenses)
- Ridling v. State, 360 Ark. 424, 203 S.W.3d 63 (jurisdiction where crime begins in one county and culminates in another)
- Cozzaglio v. State, 289 Ark. 33, 709 S.W.2d 70 (holding counties have jurisdiction when offenses occur in multiple counties)
- Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction of circuit courts over criminal statutes)
- Rickenbacker v. Norris, 361 Ark. 291, 206 S.W.3d 220 (procedural limits on habeas and proper avenues for collateral attack)