Title: Larry Kemp v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Larry KEMP v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-932                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 11, 1997


Appeal & error -- motion to dismiss appeal granted. -- The supreme court 
     granted the State's motion to dismiss appeal because appellant
     failed to demonstrate that he was a person "in custody" as
     required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.


     Motion to Dismiss Appeal; granted.
     Appellant, pro se.
     No response.

     Per Curiam. 
     Larry Kemp was convicted of being a felon in possession of a
firearm.  Mr. Kemp sought postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37.1 which allows "[a] petitioner in custody under a
sentence of a circuit court" to seek release from custody, a new
trial, or modification of sentence upon a showing of one or more
grounds listed in the Rule.
     Mr. Kemp petitioned the Pope Circuit Court relief pursuant to
the rule.  The petition was denied.  He has appealed from that
decision.  The State moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground
that, although Mr. Kemp's sentence included a fine, it did not
include confinement so he is not a person "in custody."  The
argument is that the Circuit Court was thus without jurisdiction to
proceed pursuant to the Rule, and therefore, we lack jurisdiction
as well.
     Mr. Kemp's response concedes he has no right to relief under
Rule 37.1 unless it can be found that he is in custody.  He
contends, however, that "in custody" as used in Rule 37.1 should
include a person who has been sentenced to a fine.  That is so,
says Mr. Kemp, because such a person is subject to incarceration in
the event the fine is not paid.  It is argued further that our Rule
is, as we said in Mason v. State, 285 Ark. 484, 687 S.W.2d 849
(1985), modeled upon federal habeas corpus laws in which, Mr. Kemp
argues, the concept of "custody" is expanded to include the
situation in which a person has been fined.
     While we decline to hold that we lack jurisdiction in this
matter in view of the State's failure to cite any law or case that
says so, we dismiss the appeal because Mr. Kemp's argument with
respect to whether he is in custody is without merit.  In support
of his argument Mr. Kemp cites U.S. v. Keane, 852 F.2d 199 (7th
Cir. 1988) (coram nobis petition seeking return of fine held
improper after custody had ceased), U.S. ex rel. Lawrence v. Woods,
432 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1970) (habeas corpus petition filed while
petitioner was in custody held not moot after his discharge from
custody), and Hanson v. Circuit Court of First Judicial Circuit of
Illinois, 591 F.2d 404 (7th Cir. 1979) (habeas corpus held not
available to a person subjected to a "fine-only" sentence).  None
of the cases is in point here.
     The appeal is dismissed because Mr. Kemp has failed to
demonstrate that he is a person "in custody" as required by Rule
37.1.