Watts v. Kelley, 575 S.W.3d 558

Frank Watts II challenged the denial of in forma pauperis status for a habeas petition; the circuit court found he failed to state a colorable cause of action and denied pauper status.
Watts sought an extension to file his brief and requested duplicate copies of the record at State expense; the majority deemed those motions moot after affirming the denial.
Watts's convictions: a 1997 jury conviction (multiple drug offenses; aggregate 60-year sentence) affirmed on direct appeal, and a 1998 conviction (separate drug offenses) resulting in life imprisonment as a habitual offender.
Watts previously filed a habeas petition raising the same claims (that joinder/order in the 1997 case barred the 1998 prosecution and raised double jeopardy), which this court rejected for failing to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction.
The circuit court and this court concluded Watts again failed to plead facts showing facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction and therefore did not state a colorable habeas claim.
Justice Hart dissented, arguing the record supports a double-jeopardy violation and criticizing denial of Watts's motions for additional time and state-funded copies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of in forma pauperis status	Watts argued his habeas petition merited review and he is indigent	State/court argued petition failed to state a colorable cause of action	Court affirmed denial—Watts indigent but petition not colorable
Proper basis for habeas relief	Watts contended prior joinder/limine order barred later prosecution and referenced double jeopardy	State argued habeas requires facial invalidity of judgment or lack of jurisdiction; trial errors/due-process claims insufficient	Habeas relief not available because Watts did not allege facially invalid judgment or lack of jurisdiction
Repetition/abuse of writ	Watts reasserted previously rejected claims without new supporting facts	State argued doctrine bars repeated habeas claims addressed earlier (abuse of the writ/res judicata)	Court held Watts's petition was an abuse of the writ; same claims were previously adjudicated
Motions for extension and record copies (dissent)	Watts sought additional time to file brief and duplicates at State expense; dissenter would grant them	Majority treated motions as moot after affirmance on the merits	Majority: motions moot; Justice Hart dissented, arguing merit to double-jeopardy claim and that motions should have been granted

Watts v. State, 68 Ark. App. 47, 8 S.W.3d 563 (Ark. Ct. App.) (discussing convictions and prior appeal that affirmed the 1997 convictions)