Watts v. Kelley
2017 Ark. 189
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Frank Watts, a pro se inmate, filed a habeas corpus petition and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in Lincoln County; the petitions were initially not file-marked there and duplicated a Jefferson County filing.
- Watts filed a notice of appeal claiming his habeas petition was "deemed denied by operation of law."
- The Lincoln County Circuit Court issued a memorandum explaining the clerical confusion, denied the IFP application on September 17, 2015 (citing Ark. Code § 16-68-607), but also later granted permission to pursue the appeal IFP.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court supplemented the record with the file-marked petitions after Watts moved to correct the record; Watts sought further correction, arguing the appeal derived from the clerk’s failure to file-mark the habeas petition.
- The Court concluded the deemed-denied rule for appeals does not apply to habeas proceedings, so the only appealable order was the September 17, 2015 denial of IFP; it reviewed whether the circuit court properly denied IFP under the three-strikes statute and applicable procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Watts' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Watts could appeal based on a "deemed denied" habeas petition | Watts contended his habeas was deemed denied by operation of law and thus appealable | State argued the deemed-denied appellate rule does not apply to habeas | Court: Deemed-denied rule in Ark. R. App. P. Crim. 2(a)(3) does not apply to habeas; appeal could not be premised on that theory |
| Whether Ark. Code § 16-68-607 (three-strikes) barred IFP for habeas relief | Watts argued habeas petitions are not subject to a temporal or substantive bar and cited constitutional protections for habeas | State relied on § 16-68-607 to justify denial of IFP because Watts had three prior strikes | Court: Under Renshaw, habeas cannot be time-barred; applying the three-strikes rule to prevent filing habeas would unconstitutionally suspend the writ, so statute could not preclude IFP for habeas without proper analysis |
| Whether the circuit court applied the correct standard in ruling on IFP | Watts focused on merits of habeas and did not meaningfully challenge the IFP denial on procedural grounds | State maintained the circuit court properly denied IFP based on three strikes | Court: The circuit court relied on § 16-68-607 improperly; it should have applied Ark. R. Civ. P. 72 and assessed whether Watts presented a colorable cause of action before denying IFP |
| Whether the appeal should proceed despite Watts’ failure to brief the IFP order | Watts’ briefing emphasized habeas merits and procedural errors about record labeling rather than the IFP denial | State noted Watts failed to challenge the only appealable order (the IFP denial) | Court: Dismissed the appeal for failure to address the appealable order and for failure to develop a convincing argument on the IFP denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Renshaw v. Norris, 337 Ark. 494 (court held habeas petitions are not time-barred and the writ cannot be suspended)
- Hendrix v. Black, 373 Ark. 266 (appellate courts will not consider undeveloped arguments)
- Wooten v. State, 351 Ark. 241 (appellate-review principle refusing to address inadequately developed issues)
- Spears v. Spears, 339 Ark. 162 (court will not consider issues not properly developed on appeal)