holding that a petitioner was not “in custody” for purposes of Rule 37 where the petitioner was on parole
How later courts described this case
- holding that a petitioner was not “in custody” for purposes of Rule 37 where the petitioner was on parole
- rejecting argument that a person on parole was “in custody” of the Department of Correction and holding that a petitioner must be incarcerated to be entitled to Rule 37 relief
- holding that paroled inmate did not meet the “in custody” requirement for post-conviction relief
- regarding Rule 37 relief, petitioner who is out on bond is not “in custody”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority, but would emphasize the clear introductory language of Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which establishes the parameter of the Rule — a petitioner in custody under sentence of a circuit court claiming a right to he released. . . . This court clearly has pointed out that the “Scope of the Remedy” for proceedings under Rule 37 is confined to a prisoner, in custody under sentence of a circuit court. Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 376 , 742 S.W.2d 945 (1988); Burkhart v. State, 271 Ark. 859 , 611 S.W.2d 500 (1981); Hartsell v. State, 254 Ark. 687 , 495 S.W.2d 523 (1973) (court interpreting Criminal Procedure Rule 1, predecessor to Rule 37, to provide postconviction relief only for a prisoner in custody of sentence and declining to enlarge scope of remedy to include a prisoner under sentence of a federal court; and further holding defendant was not precluded from seeking relief in appropriate federal forum). In Malone, this court stated defendants were not entitled to Rule 37 relief because defendants were out of custody on bonds when they filed their Rule 37 motion.