Court Opinion

ID: 9645192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:15:53.765443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:15.933148
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Chief Justice, dissenting in part. Appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief was based upon two grounds, i.e., that appellant was not afforded the right to have an attorney at his arraignment when he entered a plea of guilty and that he was not advised of the elements of the offense of first degree battery and arson. On these points, he introduced a transcript of the proceedings during which he was arraigned, entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced. He has never in the circuit court or this court contended that his conviction should be set aside because of the disqualification of the judge who presided at his arraignment and sentencing. The record clearly reflects a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel, if it is ever possible for one charged with a felony to waive counsel (and, of course, it is). It may well be that no objection is necessary to raise the question of potential disqualification of a trial judge under the circumstances prevailing here, in order to raisejhe question on appeal, but this is a post-conviction proceeding in a case in which no appeal was taken. Nothing in Rule 37 permits this kind of post-conviction collateral attack. Rule 37.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, states the grounds for post-conviction relief, they are: (a) that the sentence was imposed in violation • of the Constitution and laws of the United States or this state; or (b) that the court imposing the sentence was without jurisdiction to do so; or (c) that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (d) that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack; We have never held that disqualification of a judge in a case deprives the court of jurisdiction or renders a judgment entered while he" Was:presiding subject to collateral attack, unless the judge'himself is interested in the “event of the cause.” Ladd v. Stubblefield, 195 Ark. 261, 111 S.W. 2d 555. Even there we said that the act of the judge was not invalid where he exercised no discretion. In Morrow v. Watts, 80 Ark. 57, 95 S.W. 988, we said that disqualification of judges “for near relationship” was not ground to avoid the judgment. In Byler v. State, 210 Ark. 790, 197 S.W. 2d 748, on direct appeal, we held that the disqualification was ground for a new trial, when the defendant discovered the disqualifying relationship after trial and made it one of the grounds for his motion for new trial. Nothing in that opinion indicated that there was a void judgment or any want of jurisdiction. It is generally held that, at common law the judgment of a disqualified judge is only voidable, not void. Annot. 5 ALR 1588 (1920), 73 ALR 2d 1239, 1272 (I960). Rule 37 proceedings are closely related to, and a substitute for, habeas corpus. A majority of the decided cases have held that disqualification of a judge does not affect jurisdiction, but is in the nature of an error or irregularity otherwise remedial, and thus not a ground for release on habeas corpus. See Annot. 124 ALR 1079 (1940). If, indeed, the disqualification of a judge renders the judgment entered by him void, as the majority has obviously held, I do not see how this court can uphold any judgment entered by Judge Bobby Steel in a criminal case during the time his nephew was prosecuting attorney, in the absence of an express waiver. A petitioner’s lack of diligence is proper for consideration in determining whther he is entitled to post-conviction relief, but if the trial court had no jurisdiction to render a judgment, nothing can make it valid and post-conviction collateral attack would not even be barred by the three-year limitations on such petitions. A void judgment is a void judgment and it cannot be retrospectively repaired. I would hold that Judge Don Steel was disqualified to hear the petition for post-conviction relief because the question was properly presented on appeal. I would remand the proceeding to the trial court for appropriate hearing by another judge.