Hunes v. State, 2010 Ark. 70 (Ark. 2/12/2010)
| Decision Date | 12 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | CR 81-74. |
| Citation | 2010 Ark. 70 |
| Parties | Cardell HUNES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Petition Denied.
In 1981, petitioner Cardell Hunes was found guilty by a jury of rape, aggravated robbery, and two counts of kidnapping and sentenced to an aggregate term of 170 years' imprisonment. We affirmed. Hunes v. State, 274 Ark. 268, 623 S.W.2d 835 (1981). Petitioner subsequently challenged the judgment in this court in 1988 pursuant to our postconviction rule, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 (1985). The petition was denied. Hunes v. State, CR 81-74 (Ark. Nov. 21, 1988) (unpublished).
Petitioner Hunes now seeks leave from this court for a second time to proceed in the trial court with a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to 37.1.1 The petition is properly filed here. The version of Rule 37.1 in effect when petitioner's criminal judgment was entered in 1981 applied to petitioners with judgments entered before July 1, 1989, that have been affirmed on appeal, as is the case here. Petitioner is thus required to obtain leave from this court before filing a postconviction petition in the trial court. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(a) (1989).
Under the applicable version of Rule 37.1, timely petitions must have been filed within three years from the date the judgment was entered. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) (1989). An exception to the time limitation is applicable when a petition states a ground sufficient to render the judgment of conviction absolutely void. Travis v. State, 286 Ark. 26, 688 S.W.2d 935 (1985). An allegation on which a judgment can be voided must present a question of such fundamental and basic nature that the judgment is a complete nullity, such as a conviction obtained in a court without jurisdiction to try the accused or a judgment obtained in violation of double-jeopardy principles. Id. Even questions of a constitutional dimension are not preserved beyond the direct appeal or available for collateral attack unless the issue renders the judgment void. Taylor v. State, 297 Ark. 627, 764 S.W.2d 447 (1989) (per curiam).
It is thus apparent that review of mere trial error is not sufficient to warrant granting relief under Rule 37.1, and the petition cannot be used as a substitute for raising an issue at trial and on appeal. Id. If a defendant's argument fails to present a claim of constitutional deprivation of rights sufficient to render the judgment void, the Rule 37.1 petition is deemed to be untimely filed. Mackey v. State, 286 Ark. 188, 690 S.W.2d 353 (1985) (per curiam) (citing Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972)). The burden is on the defendant to establish grounds to void the judgment of conviction. Travis v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ligon v. Stilley
-
Robertson v. State
...curiam). An issue already settledat trial or on direct appeal does not provide a ground of postconviction relief.1Hunes v. State, 2010 Ark. 70, 2010 WL 502969 (per curiam); O'Rourke v. State, 298 Ark. 144, 765 S.W.2d 916 (1989) (per curiam); Swindler v. State, 272 Ark. 340, 617 S.W.2d 1 (19......
-
Lee v. State, 2010 Ark. 261 (Ark. 5/27/2010)
...A sentence in violation of double jeopardy is void. See Reed v. State, 375 Ark. 277, 289 S.W.3d 921 (2008); see also Hunes v. State, 2010 Ark. 70 (per curiam). Appellant's claim, however, was without A probation revocation, like a parole revocation, is not a stage of a criminal prosecution;......
-
Eason v. State
...explained that an issue already settled at trial or on direct appeal does not provide a ground of postconviction relief. Hunes v. State, 2010 Ark. 70 (per curiam); O'Rourke v. State, 298 Ark. 144, 765 S.W.2d 916 (1989) (per curiam). As such, we cannot say that the circuit court clearly erre......