File-Stamp Omissions on Criminal Informations Are Non‑Jurisdictional and Do Not Support Habeas Relief

Case: Edward Lee Carter v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction, 2025 Ark. 168 (Ark. Oct. 30, 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Disposition: Affirmed (denial of petition to proceed in forma pauperis on a habeas petition)

Introduction

In this pro se appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court addressed whether clerical irregularities in the filing of a criminal information—specifically, the absence of a file-stamp and an Administrative Order No. 8 cover sheet—deprive a circuit court of jurisdiction and thus provide a basis for state habeas relief. Appellant Edward Lee Carter, convicted in 2008 of aggravated robbery in Garland County and sentenced to 30 years (with the conviction affirmed on direct appeal), sought to proceed in forma pauperis on a habeas petition filed in the county of his incarceration (Chicot County). He argued the criminal information initiating his prosecution was never properly “filed” because it lacked a file-mark and was not accompanied by the Administrative Order No. 8 cover sheet, thereby depriving the trial court of authority over his case.

The circuit court denied in forma pauperis status for failure to state a claim and noted Carter had previously raised the same claim in that court. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the alleged filing defects are, at most, trial errors that do not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the trial court’s jurisdiction and therefore do not state a colorable claim for habeas relief.

Summary of the Opinion

The court reviewed the denial of in forma pauperis status for abuse of discretion and affirmed. A habeas petitioner must show facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction, supported by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause. Carter’s challenge to the information’s file-mark and cover-sheet compliance did not establish either ground:

Defects in a criminal information that do not implicate the legality of the sentence are treated as trial error, not as jurisdictional defects.
Under Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2), the “filed” stamp requirement pertains to “judgments, decrees, or orders,” not to informations. The information was docketed and assigned a case number as required by Administrative Order No. 2, which is sufficient.
Personal jurisdiction is conferred by the commission of the offense within the county; subject-matter jurisdiction derives from the circuit court’s authority to hear criminal cases. Neither depends on a file-stamp on the information.
A file-stamp is “merely evidence of filing,” not the act of filing itself.

Because Carter’s claims did not state a colorable cause of action for habeas relief, the denial of pauper status was appropriate. The court also noted that even if the circuit court had relied in part on repetitive-filing considerations, the Supreme Court could affirm the right result for the wrong reason.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Chatmon v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 155, 598 S.W.3d 34 — Establishes that review of a decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status is for abuse of discretion. This frames the appellate lens: the Supreme Court defers to the circuit court unless its decision was clearly erroneous or illogical in light of the record.
Morgan v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 189, 575 S.W.3d 108 — Defines a “colorable cause of action” as a claim that is legitimate under existing law or a reasonable extension of it. This definition underpins the threshold inquiry whether an indigent litigant’s habeas claims warrant public subsidy to proceed.
Clemmons v. Kelley, 2021 Ark. 47, 618 S.W.3d 128 — Clarifies the narrow scope of habeas relief in Arkansas: a petitioner must plead facial invalidity of the judgment or a lack of jurisdiction, supported by affidavit or other evidence. This confines habeas to core legality-of-detention questions, not trial irregularities.
Trammel v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 76 — Discusses the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine, which can bar repetitive habeas grounds previously raised without new, materially supporting facts. The court flagged this doctrine given Carter’s prior filing raising the same claim, underscoring systemic concerns about repetitive collateral attacks.
Lee v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 2 — Holds that defects in an information that do not affect the legality of the sentence are not jurisdictional and constitute trial error. This case is central: it squarely rebuts Carter’s characterization of filing irregularities as jurisdictional.
Harkuf v. Kelley, 2021 Ark. 107, 622 S.W.3d 638 — Reiterates that circuit courts possess subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions; ergo, general criminal jurisdiction is not dependent on perfect compliance with filing formalities.
Burks v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 80, 687 S.W.3d 798 — States that docket entries by clerks bear no effect on the facial legality of the judgment or the trial court’s jurisdiction. This precedent bluntly undercuts any argument that docketing irregularities themselves can support habeas.
Hunter v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 79, 666 S.W.3d 76 — Identifies the core sufficiency elements of an information (defendant, offense, statutory citation, court and county, language of the statute, and factual allegations). Carter did not challenge these substantive elements; the court emphasized that absence.
City of Helena-West Helena v. Williams, 2024 Ark. 102, 689 S.W.3d 62, quoting Republican Party of Garland Cnty. v. Johnson, 358 Ark. 443, 193 S.W.3d 248 (2004) — “A file-stamp is merely evidence of filing.” The court imports this well-settled filing principle into the criminal-information context, defeating the claim that lack of a stamp equates to a non-filing.
Wright v. State, 2025 Ark. 54, 709 S.W.3d 805 — Confirms the Supreme Court may take judicial notice in postconviction proceedings of the record on direct appeal; matters properly included in that transcript are accepted as conclusive, further reinforcing reliance on the certified record over post hoc collateral assertions.
Williams v. State, 65 Ark. App. 176, 986 S.W.2d 123 (1999) and Gill v. Burks, 207 Ark. 329, 180 S.W.2d 578 (1944) — Support the principle that certified appellate records are conclusive. This gives institutional stability to what counts as “filed” and “of record.”
Muldrow v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 126, 542 S.W.3d 856 — Prosecutorial misconduct claims, even if colorable, generally do not go to the facial validity of the judgment or the court’s jurisdiction and thus fall outside habeas.
Colston v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 54, 568 S.W.3d 265 — Allows affirmance of the correct result even if the circuit court articulated an alternative or imperfect rationale (“right result, wrong reason”). This ensured affirmance regardless of any reliance below on repetitive-filing grounds.

Legal Reasoning and Doctrinal Steps

Threshold inquiry: Does the habeas petition present a colorable claim? Under Morgan and Clemmons, a habeas claim must allege facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction with supporting evidence. Carter alleged the court lacked jurisdiction because the information lacked a file-stamp and AO-8 cover sheet. The court assessed whether those contentions, if true, would negate jurisdiction or the judgment’s facial validity.
Administrative Order No. 2’s scope. The court distinguished AO 2(b)(2)—which mandates stamping judgments, decrees, and orders—from the filing of pleadings like informations. AO 2(a) requires docketing and assignment of a file number for papers filed with the clerk. Here, the information was docketed and assigned a case number. Thus, the absence of a file-stamp on the face of the information does not equate to non-filing or defeat jurisdiction.
Administrative Order No. 8 cover sheet. Even if AO 8 contemplates that clerks should not accept certain pleadings without proper cover sheets, Carter offered no evidence that any omission was prejudicial or that the information was, in fact, rejected. The record reflected the pleading was filed, docketed, and the case proceeded to arraignment on an amended information. Any AO 8 noncompliance is not jurisdictional.
Nature of the defect: Trial error vs. jurisdictional defect. Under Lee v. Payne and Harkuf, alleged defects in an information that do not touch the legality of the sentence or the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction constitute non-jurisdictional trial error. Habeas is not a vehicle to relitigate such issues postconviction.
Jurisdictional foundations. Subject-matter jurisdiction derives from the circuit court’s constitutional/statutory authority over criminal offenses; personal jurisdiction is grounded in the commission of the offense in the county. Neither depends on a file-stamp or cover sheet on the charging instrument.
File-stamp as “evidence of filing,” not the act itself. By invoking Williams and Johnson, the court reaffirmed that stamps memorialize filing but do not constitute or confer it. Where the record shows docketing and case-number assignment—and where the appellate record is certified—the lack of a visible stamp on the face of the information does not undermine jurisdiction.
Record integrity and judicial notice. The court relied on the certified record from direct appeal proceedings, which is conclusive and susceptible to judicial notice in postconviction matters (Wright; Williams; Gill). This defeats collateral assertions inconsistent with that record.
IFP gatekeeping and outcome. Because Carter’s habeas petition did not present a colorable claim (i.e., it did not plausibly allege facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction), the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying pauper status. Even if the circuit court’s order referenced repetitive litigation, the Supreme Court could affirm on the alternative ground that the claim is non-habeas cognizable (Colston).

Administrative Orders 2 and 8: How They Operate Here

Administrative Order No. 2(a): Requires that papers filed be docketed chronologically, assigned a file number, and noted in the docket. The information in Carter’s case satisfied these requirements.
Administrative Order No. 2(b)(2): Mandates “filed” stamps for judgments, decrees, or orders—not for informations. Carter’s reliance on this subparagraph was misplaced.
Administrative Order No. 8: While it imposes cover-sheet obligations, any noncompliance is a filing irregularity. The court found no evidence that the clerk rejected the pleading, and no authority that such irregularity is jurisdictional or renders the judgment facially invalid.

Impact and Significance

This opinion consolidates and extends settled Arkansas principles in a focused way:

For habeas jurisprudence: It reaffirms the narrow scope of habeas relief. Procedural or clerical irregularities in charging documents—absent a challenge that bears on the legality of the sentence or the court’s fundamental power—are not cognizable in habeas.
For criminal practice: It clarifies that alleged defects in the file-marking of informations or cover-sheet compliance must be raised, if at all, at trial or on direct appeal—not through collateral habeas attack years later. Defense counsel should timely assert such issues and frame them as trial error.
For court administration and clerks: While proper stamping and cover-sheet procedures remain best practice, their omission does not automatically unravel jurisdiction where the record reflects docketing and case assignment. The court’s reliance on certified records reinforces the importance of accurate docketing and record certification.
For repetitive litigation control: The court signals openness to the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine to curb repetitive habeas filings. Although not decisive here, the note serves as a caution against serial, non-meritorious collateral challenges.
Doctrinal refinement: By applying the “file-stamp is evidence of filing” principle in the criminal-information context, the court reduces the room for hyper-technical attacks on charging instruments long after conviction.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Habeas Corpus (State): A limited postconviction remedy that challenges the legality of detention. In Arkansas, it is confined to two core grounds: the judgment is facially invalid, or the trial court lacked jurisdiction. It is not a mechanism to re-try the case or revisit routine trial errors.
Jurisdiction:
- Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The court’s authority to hear a category of cases (here, criminal cases). Arkansas circuit courts have it by law for criminal prosecutions.
- Personal Jurisdiction: The court’s authority over the defendant, typically established by the offense being committed within the county.
Filing defects in an information (e.g., missing stamp) do not negate either jurisdictional type.
Trial Error vs. Jurisdictional Defect: Trial errors are procedural or evidentiary mistakes occurring during prosecution and should be raised at trial or on direct appeal. They ordinarily do not void the court’s authority to act. Jurisdictional defects concern the court’s very power to hear the case; those can support habeas relief.
Administrative Orders 2 and 8: Internal court administration rules on filing and docketing. AO 2(b)(2) concerns stamping of orders/judgments, not charging instruments; AO 8 contemplates cover sheets but noncompliance is not inherently jurisdictional.
File-Stamp: A clerk’s stamp showing the date/time a document was filed. It is evidence that a filing occurred, not the act of filing itself. A properly docketed and case-numbered pleading can be “filed” even if the face of the pleading lacks a stamp.
In Forma Pauperis (IFP): Permission to proceed without paying fees due to indigence. Courts may deny IFP where the underlying pleading fails to state a colorable claim, serving as a gatekeeping function.
Abuse-of-the-Writ: A doctrine preventing repetitive habeas petitions that rehash previously raised arguments without new, material facts. It protects finality and judicial economy.
“Right Result, Wrong Reason”: An appellate court may affirm a lower court’s decision if the result is correct, even if the reasoning below was imperfect or relied on alternative grounds.

Practical Takeaways

Challenges to filing irregularities in the information (missing file-stamp, cover-sheet defects) are not jurisdictional; they should be raised at trial or on direct appeal, not via habeas.
To state a colorable habeas claim, focus on facial invalidity of the judgment (e.g., sentence beyond statutory maximum) or true jurisdictional defects (e.g., court lacked authority to hear the case, offense outside jurisdiction with no basis for venue/jurisdiction).
Certified appellate records are controlling; collateral claims that contradict the certified record are unlikely to prevail.
Repeatedly filing the same habeas grounds risks dismissal under the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine.

Conclusion

Carter v. Payne, 2025 Ark. 168 reinforces a clear and administrable rule: filing irregularities in a criminal information—such as the absence of a file-stamp or a cover sheet—are not jurisdictional defects and cannot sustain state habeas relief. By situating Administrative Orders 2 and 8 within the broader doctrinal framework distinguishing trial error from jurisdictional infirmity, the Arkansas Supreme Court ensures that habeas remains a narrowly tailored remedy focused on the legality of detention, not a backdoor forum for postconviction attacks on clerical formalities. The decision also underscores the gatekeeping role of in forma pauperis determinations and the primacy of certified appellate records, promoting finality and conserving judicial resources.