Anderson v. Hobbs ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                        Cite as 
    2013 Ark. 310
    SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
    No. CV-11-1182
    Opinion Delivered September 5, 2013
    PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
    GARY ANDERSON                                       LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
    APPELLANT         40LCV-11-55, HON. JODI RAINES
    DENNIS, JUDGE
    v.
    RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION                            AFFIRMED.
    APPELLEE
    PER CURIAM
    In 2003, appellant Gary Anderson pled guilty to rape in the Hot Spring County Circuit
    Court in Case No. 30CR-02-244, and he was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. On the
    same date, appellant pled guilty to sexual assault in the second degree in Case No. 30CR-02-245
    and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the sentence
    imposed in Case No. 30CR-02-244. On May 11, 2011, appellant filed a petition for writ of
    habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court, the county in which he was imprisoned.1
    In his petition, appellant alleged that his due-process rights were violated at his guilty-plea
    hearing based on the trial court’s failure to comply with Rules 24.4, 24.5, and 24.6 of the
    Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court dismissed the petition, and appellant
    brings this appeal. We find no error and affirm.
    A writ of habeas corpus is only proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its
    face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Girley v. Hobbs, 
    2012 Ark. 447
    1
    As of the date of this decision, appellant remains in custody in Lincoln County.
    Cite as 
    2013 Ark. 310
    (per curiam); Abernathy v. Norris, 
    2011 Ark. 335
     (per curiam). The burden is on the petitioner
    in a habeas-corpus petition to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the
    commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of
    habeas corpus should issue. Young v. Norris, 
    365 Ark. 219
    , 
    226 S.W.3d 797
     (2006) (per curiam).
    Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence must plead either the
    facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and make a showing by affidavit or
    other evidence of probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. 
    Ark. Code Ann. § 16
    -
    112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006); Murry v. Hobbs, 
    2013 Ark. 64
     (per curiam). Moreover, a habeas
    proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his or her case, and it is not a
    substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 
    364 Ark. 315
    , 
    219 S.W.3d 123
     (2005) (per curiam).
    Appellant contends that at his plea hearing, the trial court violated certain court rules with
    regard to the negotiation and acceptance of guilty pleas, thereby violating his rights to procedural
    due process and losing jurisdiction to sentence him. Because his claims do not challenge the
    facial validity of the judgment and failed to demonstrate a lack of the trial court’s jurisdiction,
    they are not cognizable in a petition for habeas corpus relief. Culbertson v. State, 
    2012 Ark. 112
    (per curiam); Skinner v. Hobbs, 
    2011 Ark. 383
     (per curiam); Friend, 
    364 Ark. 315
    , 
    219 S.W.3d 123
    ;
    see also McHaney v. Hobbs, 
    2012 Ark. 361
     (per curiam) (due-process allegations are not cognizable
    in a habeas proceeding). Although we treat allegations of void or illegal sentences as issues of
    subject-matter jurisdiction, the type of factual inquiry necessary for an issue that concerns the
    factual basis for a plea is one that goes beyond the face of the commitment and is not the kind
    Cite as 
    2013 Ark. 310
    of inquiry to be addressed by a proceeding for the writ. Culbertson, 
    2012 Ark. 112
    ; Skinner, 
    2011 Ark. 383
    ; Friend, 364 Ark. at 317, 
    219 S.W.3d at 125
    . Appellant failed to show that the judgment
    of conviction was facially invalid or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction; thus, the trial court
    properly denied his petition for relief.
    Because appellant has failed to show the judgment of conviction was invalid on its face
    or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction, the circuit court properly determined that the writ
    should not issue. Thus, we affirm the dismissal of appellant’s petition.
    Affirmed.
    Gary Anderson, pro se appellant.
    Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-11-1182

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 9/5/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014