Wesson v. Hobbs
2014 Ark. 285
Ark.2014Background
- Wesson pleaded guilty in 2010 to violating probation terms and was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment.
- While incarcerated, Wesson filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in Jefferson County alleging multiple defects in the revocation and plea process.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition for failure to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction.
- The court summarized the law: habeas corpus requires facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; otherwise no writ issue.
- Appellate review affirmed the circuit court, holding many asserted defects were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
- The court concluded there was no display of facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction; the petition was properly denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance claims cognizable in habeas? | Wesson asserts ineffective assistance of counsel at revocation. | Ineffective-assistance claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus; must be raised in postconviction. | Not cognizable in habeas; petition appropriately dismissed. |
| Timeliness of revocation proceeding affects jurisdiction? | Revocation occurred untimely under 5-4-310(b)(2). | Delay does not create a jurisdictional defect; not cognizable in habeas. | No jurisdictional defect; not cognizable in habeas. |
| Other trial-error claims implicating facial validity or jurisdiction? | Various trial errors undermine facial validity/jurisdiction. | Trial errors do not implicate facial validity or trial court jurisdiction in habeas. | No facial-invalidity or lack-of-jurisdiction shown; habeas denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gooch v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 73 (Ark. 2014) (habeas corpus requires facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction)
- Davis v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 45 (Ark. 2014) (per curiam; habeas standards applied)
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219 (Ark. 2006) (probable-cause requirement for jurisdictional challenge in habeas)
- Frost v. State, 2014 Ark. 46 (Ark. 2014) (clearly erroneous standard in habeas review)
- Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26 (Ark. 2014) (per curiam; jurisdictional questions in habeas review)
- Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 413 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; general habeas standards cited)
- Green v. State, 2014 Ark. 30 (Ark. 2014) (ineffective assistance claims not cognizable in habeas)
- Rodgers v. State, 2011 Ark. 443 (Ark. 2011) (postconviction requirements; not cognizable in habeas)
- Rickenbacker v. Norris, 361 Ark. 291 (Ark. 2005) (per curiam; habeas scope discussed)