Lukach v. Hobbs , 2014 Ark. 106 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                       Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 106
    SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
    No.   CV-13-571
    JOHN RICHARD LUKACH                                 Opinion Delivered March   6, 2014
    APPELLANT
    PRO SE MOTION FOR EXPANSION
    V.                                                  OF PAGE LIMIT FOR BRIEF AND
    MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
    TO FILE BRIEF; MOTION FOR
    RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS                       HEARING AND FOR APPOINTMENT
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION                            OF COUNSEL; MOTION TO ATTACH
    APPELLEE                     DIRECT-APPEAL BRIEFS AS
    EXHIBITS; AMENDED MOTION FOR
    EXPANSION OF PAGE LIMIT FOR
    BRIEF [JEFFERSON COUNTY
    CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 35CV-13-12]
    HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
    JUDGE
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
    MOOT.
    PER CURIAM
    On January 8, 2013, appellant John Richard Lukach filed a pro se petition for writ of
    habeas corpus in the Jefferson County Circuit Court where he was incarcerated. The circuit
    court dismissed the petition, and appellant lodged an appeal from the order in this court. Now
    before us are appellant’s motions for expansion of page limit for brief and extension of time
    to file brief, for hearing and appointment of counsel, and to attach direct-appeal briefs as
    exhibits, as well as his amended motion for expansion of page limit.
    We do not reach the merits of the motions and dismiss the appeal because the Jefferson
    County Circuit Court can no longer grant the relief requested by appellant. See Chestang v. Hobbs,
    
    2011 Ark. 404
     (per curiam). An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, including an appeal
    Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 106
    from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go
    forward where it is clear that the appeal is without merit. Glaze v. State, 
    2013 Ark. 458
     (per
    curiam); Wilencewicz v. Hobbs, 
    2012 Ark. 230
     (per curiam).
    Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly
    addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the
    petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Wilencewicz, 
    2012 Ark. 230
    ; Davis v. Hobbs, 
    2012 Ark. 167
     (per curiam). Appellant’s petition was not filed under Act 1780, and the public records
    of the Arkansas Department of Correction confirm that appellant is now incarcerated in a
    facility in Lincoln County.
    A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner
    not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Fields v. State, 
    2013 Ark. 471
     (per curiam); Chestang,
    
    2011 Ark. 404
    . When a prisoner who seeks habeas relief is transferred to a facility in a different
    county, the circuit court in the county where the prisoner was previously incarcerated no longer
    has jurisdiction to issue and make a returnable writ. Fields, 
    2013 Ark. 471
    ; Wilencewicz, 
    2012 Ark. 230
    . Although the Jefferson County Circuit Court may have retained subject-matter jurisdiction,
    it does not retain personal jurisdiction over the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained,
    and an order by that court will not act to effect his release. Davis v. Hobbs, 
    2013 Ark. 378
     (per
    curiam). This court will dismiss an appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus
    when the appellant is no longer incarcerated in the county where his petition was filed because
    the court can no longer grant the relief sought. 
    Id.
    Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
    John Richard Lukach, pro se appellant.
    No response.
    2
    Cite as 
    2014 Ark. 106
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-13-571

Citation Numbers: 2014 Ark. 106

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/6/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016