Zulpo v. State
2013 Ark. 468
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 1987 Chris Zulpo was convicted of kidnapping in Saline County and sentenced to 240 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- In 1989 Zulpo filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition in the trial court without first obtaining leave from the Arkansas Supreme Court (as required under the Rule then); he was released on bond, failed to appear at a revocation hearing, a warrant issued, and he was rearrested in 2009.
- Zulpo later pointed to a 1996 order (in the same criminal docket) purporting to dismiss the case for lack of a speedy trial and argued he was thereafter unlawfully rearrested and restrained.
- In 2013, while incarcerated in Lee County, Zulpo filed a pro se motion titled "Motion to Order Release Due to Court Order from 1996" in the Lee County Circuit Court; the court dismissed it as an improper challenge to the Saline County conviction that should have been filed in the trial court.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding the Lee County court lacked jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief from the 1987 judgment and that Zulpo’s claims were not cognizable on habeas because they did not attack the trial court’s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the original judgment-and-commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Zulpo's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for postconviction relief under old Rule 37 | Zulpo sought relief in Lee County based on a 1996 order | Petition must be filed in the trial court; under 1987 Rule 37, leave of the Supreme Court was required before filing in trial court | Dismissal affirmed—Lee County lacked jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief from the 1987 judgment |
| Habeas-corpus availability | Zulpo argued unlawful detention after 1996 order (double jeopardy/rearrest) | Habeas is available only for facially invalid judgments or lack of court jurisdiction | Habeas unavailable because Zulpo did not allege facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction of the original judgment |
| Double jeopardy claim cognizability in habeas | Zulpo claimed double jeopardy due to rearrest after dismissal order | Claim challenges subsequent proceedings, not the original commitment’s facial validity or jurisdiction | Claim not cognizable on habeas because it attacks a later order/action, not the original judgment-and-commitment |
| Procedural relief in this appeal (belated reply brief) | Zulpo sought leave to file a belated reply brief in the appeal | State did not oppose mooting issue on merits | Motion to file belated reply brief held moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (habeas petitioner must show trial court lacked jurisdiction or commitment is facially invalid)
- Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (habeas is not a vehicle to retry issues decided at trial)
- Long v. State, 284 Ark. 21, 680 S.W.2d 686 (1984) (trial court has exclusive jurisdiction to render final judgment on a felony information)
- Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007) (jurisdiction is the court’s power to hear and determine subject matter)