Hobbs v. Gordon

Citation2014 Ark. 225,434 S.W.3d 364
Decision Date15 May 2014
Docket NumberNo. CV–13–492.,CV–13–492.
PartiesRay HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellant v. Ulonzo GORDON, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

2014 Ark. 225
434 S.W.3d 364

Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellant
v.
Ulonzo GORDON, Appellee.

No. CV–13–492.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 15, 2014.


[434 S.W.3d 365]


Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellant.

D'Lorah L. Hughes; and Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellee.


KAREN R. BAKER, Justice.

On June 16, 1995, a Crittenden County jury convicted appellee, Ulonzo Gordon, of capital murder and sentenced him to mandatory life without the possibility of parole. We affirmed his conviction, as well as the sentences and convictions of his two codefendants in Cooper v. State, 324 Ark. 135, 919 S.W.2d 205 (1996), overruled on other grounds by MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390, 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998). Gordon subsequently filed a Rule 37 petition seeking postconviction relief which the circuit court denied. We affirmed the circuit court in Gordon v. State, No. CR–96–878, 1997 WL 583031 (Ark. Sept. 18, 1997) (unpublished opinion).

On June 24, 2013, Gordon filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16–112–118(b)(1)(A)–(B) (Repl.2006), alleging that he was being held without lawful authority pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), and asserting that his sentence to life imprisonment was illegal because he was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Gordon further asserted that the Crittenden County Circuit Clerk entered the wrong birth date on his judgment and commitment order having stated that his birthday was August 18, 1976. However, Gordon claimed that his birthday was August 18, 1977, which would make Gordon seventeen years old and a juvenile at the time of the

[434 S.W.3d 366]

offense. Gordon attached as an exhibit to his petition a certified copy of his birth certificate, which reflected that his birth date was August 18, 1977.

Gordon cites Miller as his basis for relief, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that the mandatory life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentence was unconstitutional as to juveniles. In Miller, the Supreme Court held “that the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.... Although we do not foreclose a sentencer's ability to make that judgment in homicide cases, we require it to take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller, ––– U.S. at ––––, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 (internal quotations and citations omitted). In Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175, 426 S.W.3d 906, on remand to this court, we severed the language of our capital-murder statute as it applies to juveniles to remove the mandatory sentencing of life without parole, granted Jackson's writ of habeas corpus, and remanded Jackson's case to the circuit court for resentencing to comply with Miller. Based on these cases, Gordon asserts that his sentence was illegal on its face.

In his petition, Gordon contended that at the time of the offense, January 28, 1995, pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5–4–601 (Repl.2006), capital murder was punishable only by either life imprisonment or death. Thus, Gordon asserted that his life sentence was mandatorily imposed and in violation of Miller. Further, Gordon asserted that because Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), declared the death penalty an unconstitutional sentence for juveniles convicted of any crime, the remaining sentence, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, was mandatorily imposed. Gordon further contended that based on Roper, life without parole was the only sentence available for a juvenile convicted of capital murder in Arkansas and was mandatorily imposed on him. Gordon asserted that the circuit court should vacate his sentence as unconstitutional and remand it for resentencing pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 16–112–117 (Repl.2006).

On July 29, 2013, appellant, Ray Hobbs, Director of the Arkansas Department of Correction (hereinafter “the State”) responded to Gordon's petition with a “Memorandum in Opposition to the Petition.” Citing the habeas statutes, the State asserted that it was not required to file a responsive pleading, “a return,” unless the circuit court first found that the petition “show[s], by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe [the petitioner] is detained without lawful authority.” Although the State maintained that it was not required to file a formal return until the formal probable-cause determination was made, the State “offered this memorandum of authorities to assist the court in that determination.” The State responded that Gordon's petition should be denied for two reasons. First, because “Gordon's Miller claim is ... that his sentence was imposed on him by an illegal procedure, ... a mandatory punishment scheme, his claim is not cognizable under the state habeas-corpus statute.” Second, the State responded that even if Gordon's claim was cognizable, he is still not entitled to relief because Miller did not apply retroactively.

On August 7, 2013, the circuit court entered a letter opinion, which stated in pertinent part:

The Court has received a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Ulonzo Gordon. It appears that Miller v. Alabama, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), is applicable.

[434 S.W.3d 367]

Accordingly; Whiteside v. State, 2013 Ark. 176, 426 S.W.3d 917, and Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175, 426 S.W.3d 906, require this Court to grant the Petition of Ulonzo Gordon for habeas relief.

On August 23, 2013, the circuit court granted Gordon's petition and vacated and set aside Gordon's sentence. The order stated in pertinent part:

The Court finds that the grant of the writ is compelled by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama/Jackson v. Hobbs [––– U.S. –––– ], 132 S.Ct. 2455 [183 L.Ed.2d 407] (2012), and of the Arkansas Supreme Court in Jackson v. Norris, 2013 Ark. 175 [426 S.W.3d 906]. Petitioner Gordon's sentence of life imprisonment without parole is hereby vacated and set aside.

The writ having been granted, the Circuit Court of Crittenden County is hereby reinvested with jurisdiction to conduct resentencing proceedings. Accordingly, matters surrounding the issuance of summons and Respondent's Motion to Quash are moot.

On September 9, 2013, the State filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that the circuit court's order was inconsistent with the procedure prescribed in the habeas corpus statute. The State contended that the order was inconsistent because if the circuit court believed that Gordon had demonstrated probable cause to believe that Gordon may be unlawfully detained, the circuit court should “do no more than issue the writ requiring [the State] to submit a return so that material facts can be ascertained as to the lawfulness ... of [Gordon's] custody. In other words, granting the writ at this stage means only that [the State] should file a return, and, if [the State] disputes the lawfulness of [Gordon's] custody, the Court should conduct a hearing to ascertain material facts.” The circuit court did not rule on the motion for reconsideration and it was deemed denied.

The State now brings this appeal and presents three issues for review: (1) the circuit court erred in granting Gordon's habeas petition because the petition failed to demonstrate probable cause to believe he is detained without lawful authority, as claims under Miller are not cognizable under the habeas corpus statute; (2) the circuit court erred in granting Gordon's habeas petition because the petition failed to demonstrate probable cause to believe he is detained without lawful authority, as Miller does not apply retroactively; and (3) the circuit court's writ was invalid pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16–112–103 to –108.

On review, we “will...

To continue reading

Request your trial
141 cases
  • Proctor v. Payne
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 16 Abril 2020
    ......The circuit court granted Proctor’s habeas petition. Relying on Hobbs v. Turner , 2014 Ark. 19, 431 S.W.3d 283, the circuit court found that the remedy for a Graham violation is to reduce the petitioner’s life ...A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing ......
  • Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Walker
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 15 Mayo 2014
    ......        [434 S.W.3d 363]92 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 1 (2006); see also, THI of New Mexico at Hobbs Ctr., LLC v. Spradlin, 893 F.Supp.2d 1172, 1178 (D.N.M.2012)aff'd,532 Fed.Appx. 813 (10th Cir.2013) (“It is the party seeking judicial enforcement ......
  • Pelletier v. Kelley
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 6 Diciembre 2018
    ......See id. A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after ......
  • Wolfe v. Payne
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 22 Abril 2021
    ......Fields v. Hobbs , 2013 Ark. 416.III. Standard of Review A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly ous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE TRILOGY AND BEYOND.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Law Review Vol. 62 No. 3, September 2017
    • 22 Septiembre 2017
    ...BOSTON GLOBE (June 25, 2012), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2012/06/25/juveniles/oo7WFHAH01tbNJAnfVdapJ/story.html. (84.) Hobbs v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 364, 369 (Ark. 2014). (85.) Casiano v. Comm'r of Corr., 115 A.3d 1031, 1047-48 (Conn. 2015), cert, denied sub nom. Semple v. Casiano, 136 S. Ct......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT