Kenny Halfacre v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 86-183 & CR 86-184
Opinion Delivered
KENNY HALFACRE
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
November 13, 2008
PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
UNDER RULE 37.1 [CIRCUIT COURT
OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 85-1577,
CR 85-1579]
PETITION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
Now before us is petitioner’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to
consider a petition under the version of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 in effect when
he was convicted.1 The petition concerns two separate criminal cases. In each, petitioner was
convicted of one count of aggravated robbery under the statute in effect at the time of the crimes.
See Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-2102(a) and 41-2103 (Repl. 1977). We affirmed both convictions.
Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 329, 731 S.W.2d 182 (1987); Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731
S.W.2d 179 (1987).
Petitioner has previously sought leave from this court to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37.1 in these two criminal matters. The
prior petitions have been denied.2 In the instant petition, petitioner has likewise failed to
1
For clerical purposes, the instant pleading was assigned the same docket numbers as the direct
appeals of the judgments. Prior to July 1, 1989, a petitioner whose judgment of conviction had been
affirmed on appeal was required to petition this court for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 and
gain leave from this court to proceed under the rule in the circuit court before filing a petition there.
2
Halfacre v. State, 86-183 (Ark. Nov. 9, 1987) (per curiam) (regarding Pulaski County Case No.
CR 85-1579); Halfacre v. State, 86-184 (Ark. Nov. 9, 1987) (per curiam) (regarding Pulaski Case No. CR
85-1577, granting the petition in part and denying the petition in part); Halfacre v. State, 86-183 and 86-
demonstrate entitlement to the relief sought, and the petition is dismissed.
Petitioner committed both underlying felonies in 1985. Under the version of Rule 37.1 that
was in effect when petitioner committed those crimes, petitions were required to be filed within
three years from the date the judgment was entered. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) (1985). Nevertheless,
grounds sufficient to void the judgment absolutely creates an exception to the time limitation.
Travis v. State, 286 Ark. 26, 688 S.W.2d 935 (1985). An issue sufficient to void a judgment
absolutely must be an issue that will render the judgment a nullity. Id. An example is a trial court’s
lack of jurisdiction to try a petitioner. Id.
To avoid the three-year time limitation, petitioner here crafts his argument based upon an
allegation that the judgments are void. Even so, the instant petition is the third petition filed in this
court seeking Rule 37.1 relief pertaining to the two criminal cases at issue. Under the applicable
provision, a petitioner was required to raise all issues for postconviction relief in the original petition
unless that petition was denied without prejudice. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(b) (1985); Ruiz v. State,
280 Ark. 190, 655 S.W.2d 441 (1983) (per curiam) (prohibiting a subsequent petition in a capitalmurder case).
In this matter, petitioner’s original petitions filed in this court in 1987 were not denied
without prejudice. The second petition was denied by this court in 2007 as being a prohibited
subsequent petition. Petitioner is therefore prohibited from filing a third petition seeking to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a Rule 37.1 petition.
Petition dismissed.
184 (Ark. Mar. 22, 2007) (per curiam) (regarding Case Nos. CR 85-1577 and CR 85-1579, seeking a writ
of error coram nobis, or, in the alternative, permission to file a Rule 37.1 petition in the trial court).
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
