WILLIE JAMES NOBLE , 2018 Ark. 2 ( 2018 )

Cite as 2018 Ark. 2
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-17-505
Opinion Delivered January 4, 2018
WILLIE JAMES NOBLE
APPELLANT
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 39CV-17-60]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE RICHARD L.
PROCTOR, JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED.
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Appellant Willie James Noble brings this appeal from the order of the Lee County
Circuit Court denying his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas
Code Annotated section 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016). Noble, who is incarcerated by
virtue of a 2015 judgment of conviction for first-degree murder and committing multiple
terroristic acts, argued that the writ should issue because the judgment entered in the trial
court in his case was illegal. He based the claim on the ground that the trial court ordered
a firearm enhancement to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for first-degree
murder. The appeal is dismissed because Noble is no longer incarcerated within the
jurisdiction of the Lee County Circuit Court.
In its brief, the State correctly notes that Noble is now housed at a unit of the
Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) located in Pulaski County. In a reply brief
tendered to this court on September 7, 2017, Noble gives his return address as the
Wrightsville Unit in Pulaski County, and the ADC’s website also indicates that he is
currently housed at that location.
Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly
addressed to the circuit court in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is
filed pursuant to Act 1780. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -207 (Repl. 2016).
Noble did not proceed under Act 1780. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-105
(Repl. 2016) requires that the writ be directed to the person in whose custody the petitioner
is detained. Although a circuit court may have subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the writ,
a court does not have personal jurisdiction to issue and make returnable before itself a writ
of habeas corpus to release a petitioner held in another county. Williams v. Kelley, 2017
Ark. 198; see also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991); State Dep’t of
Pub. Welfare v. Lipe, 257 Ark. 1015, 1017, 521 S.W.2d 526, 528 (1975) (“[T]he controlling
question is the identity of the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained.”).
Appeal dismissed.
HART, J., dissents.
2
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, dissenting. Dismissing this case on
jurisdictional grounds is error. The majority suggests that there
is a want of personal jurisdiction in this case, a contention that is not supported by the record.
When Mr. Noble filed his petition in Lee County, he was incarcerated in Lee County. The
Lee County Circuit Court heard his case on the merits and denied his petition. When Mr.
Noble filed his notice of appeal, he was likewise incarcerated in Lee County. Accordingly,
at all time relevant to this appeal, the Lee County Circuit Court had personal jurisdiction over
Mr. Noble.
Apparently, after Mr. Noble filed his notice of appeal, the Arkansas Department of
Correction transferred Mr. Noble to the Wrightsville facility, which is located in Pulaski
County. However, when Mr. Noble perfected his appeal, jurisdiction was established in this
court. The Arkansas Supreme Court, of course, has statewide jurisdiction. Moreover, article 7,
section 4, of the Arkansas Constitution gives this court full power to issue writs of habeas
corpus, as does the Arkansas habeas statute, Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-102(a)(1)
( Repl. 2016). Accordingly, should this court decide that Mr. Noble’s petition has merit, we
have full authority to transfer the case to the circuit court in the county where he is currently
incarcerated or even direct the Arkansas Department of Correction to release him.
It is frightening to think that if a citizen of this state is wrongly imprisoned, the
Arkansas Department of Correction could avoid facing judicial intervention via the writ of
habeas corpus simply by moving the petitioner to another county. This court should not
condone, much less become an active participant in such a shell game.
I respectfully dissent.
Willie James Noble, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.