Gerald H. Lowery, Sr. v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction , 2023 Ark. 85 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. 85SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-22-536
Opinion Delivered: May 11, 2023
GERALD H. LOWERY, SR.
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 40CV-22-35]
HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AFFIRMED.
APPELLEE
BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice
A Miller County jury convicted Gerald H. Lowery, Sr., of rape and second-degree
sexual assault, for which he was sentenced to consecutive terms of life and 240 months’
imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This court affirmed his
convictions and sentences. Lowery v. State, 2019 Ark. 332, 586 S.W.3d 644. After seeking
Rule 37.1 postconviction relief, the denial of which we affirmed on appeal, 1 Lowery now
appeals the denial and dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the county of
his incarceration pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl.
2016). Lowery alleged in his habeas petition (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try
him by failing to adhere to Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 5 because
1
Lowery v. State, 2021 Ark. 97, 621 S.W.3d 140.
he was not brought to trial within nine months when the victim was under the age of
fourteen at the time of the offense; and (2) that he was not allowed to present evidence from
social services of four other children living in the same household that would have
exonerated him.2 Because there are no grounds stated in either the petition filed in the
circuit court or in his appellate arguments on which a writ of habeas corpus could issue, we
affirm the circuit court’s order.
I. Writ of Habeas Corpus
A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid
on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Foreman v. State, 2019
Ark. 108, 571 S.W.3d 484. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the
subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). When
the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment. Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479,
769 S.W.2d 3 (1989).
A petitioner who does not allege his or her actual innocence and proceed under Act
1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment 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 or she is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl.
2
Lowery fails to reassert his evidentiary claim on appeal. Claims that are raised below
but have not been reasserted on appeal are considered abandoned; as such, Lowery’s
evidentiary claim is abandoned. Hill v. Kelley, 2022 Ark. 3.
2
2016). Proceedings for the writ are not intended to require an extensive review of the record
of the trial proceedings, and the circuit court’s inquiry into the validity of the judgment is
limited to the face of the commitment order. Jones v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 290. Unless the
petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order
was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should
issue. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
II. Standard of Review
A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless
it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly
erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing
the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made. Ratliff v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 105, 541 S.W.3d 408.
III. Claims for Relief
On appeal, Lowery argues, as he did below, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
try him and convict him because he was not brought to trial within nine months following
the filing of the criminal information because the offense involved a victim under the age of
fourteen pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-10-130 and Administrative Order
No. 5.3 Specifically, Lowery contends that because the trial court granted continuances
3
The criminal information was filed on January 24, 2018, and an amended
information was filed on November 8, 2018. The sentencing order was filed on December
17, 2018. See Williams v. State, 2019 Ark. 289, 586 S.W.3d 148 (This court may take judicial
3
“without any semblance of compliance, multiple times[,]” jurisdiction could not “attach” to
the proceedings. Lowery further contends that jurisdiction cannot be lost or regained “as
frequently or easily as flipping a switch” and that the trial court’s failure to adhere to
Administrative Order No. 5 resulted in the trial court losing jurisdiction. Lowery’s claims do
not warrant habeas relief.
Although repealed in 2021, section 16-10-103 did state:
Notwithstanding any rule of court to the contrary . . ., all courts of this state
having jurisdiction of criminal offenses, except for extraordinary
circumstances, shall give precedence to the trials of criminal offenses over
other matters before the court, civil or criminal, when the alleged victim is a
person under the age of fourteen (14).
Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 5 states, in reference to section 16-10-
103, that
when a case affected by § 16-10-130 is not tried or otherwise disposed of within
nine months following the filing of a criminal information in the circuit court,
the circuit judge before whom the case is pending, will inform the
Administrative Office of the Courts in writing the reason or reasons therefor.
Thereafter, at intervals of ninety (90) days the trial court will inform the
Administrative Office of the Courts of the status of the case. During the
pendency of the case, no continuance shall be granted on motion of either the
state or the defendant except upon written order detailing the reasons for, and
the duration of, the delay.
Lowery attempts to frame his argument as one that questions the jurisdiction of the
trial court, but his argument is nothing more than a claim of trial error that does not
implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. See Wade v.
notice in postconviction proceedings of the record on direct appeal without need to
supplement the record.).
4
Payne, 2021 Ark. 116, 623 S.W.3d 568 (Wade’s argument that he did not consent to one of
the continuances as a challenge to speedy trial was nothing more than a claim of trial error.).
If there were errors at trial, those issues should have been raised at trial and on the record
on direct appeal. Lowery’s claim is not within the purview of the remedy because the writ
will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. Stephenson v. Kelley,
2018 Ark. 271, 544 S.W.3d 44.
Lowery also contends he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the claims he raised
in the habeas petition. Our statutory scheme does not mandate a hearing on a habeas
petition regardless of the allegations contained in it. Noble v. State, 2019 Ark. 284, 585
S.W.3d 671. A hearing is not required when probable cause for issuance of the writ is not
shown by affidavit or other evidence. Id. Because Lowery failed to establish probable cause
for issuance of the writ, he was not entitled to a hearing. Id.Affirmed.
Gerald H. Lowery, Sr., pro se appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5