Tevarius Green v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction ( 2022 )

Cite as 2022 Ark. 157SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-22-209
Opinion Delivered: September 22, 2022
TEVARIUS GREEN
APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 40CV-22-1]
HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, JUDGE
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION AFFIRMED.
APPELLEE
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Appellant Tevarius Green appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016)
in Lincoln County, which is the county where he is incarcerated. Green contended in his
petition filed in the circuit court and in his argument on appeal that his conviction is illegal
because he was not tried within the required speedy-trial provisions of the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-95-101
(Repl. 2006).1 The circuit court dismissed Green’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,
1
The IAD is a compact among forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the United States. State v. Higginbotham, 2020 Ark. 315, 612
S.W.3d 164. The purpose of the IAD is to encourage expeditious disposition of outstanding
charges and a determination of the status of detainers based on untried informations. Id.concluding that he failed to demonstrate he was illegally detained. Because we find that
Green’s claim does not fall within the purview of habeas proceedings, we affirm.
I. Background
In December 2014, a Mississippi County Circuit Court jury convicted Green of
capital murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Green appealed, and we affirmed his conviction and sentence. Green v. State, 2015 Ark. 359,
471 S.W.3d 200.
II. Grounds for Issuance of the Writ
A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid
on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Finney v. Kelley, 2020 Ark.
145, 598 S.W.3d 26. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject
matter in controversy. Id. When the circuit court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant
and also has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the
judgment. Id. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases
involving violations of criminal statutes and has personal jurisdiction over offenses
committed within the county over which it presides. Fuller/Akbar v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 155,
628 S.W.3d 366.
Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ 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 circuit court’s lack of jurisdiction and make a showing, by affidavit or other
evidence, of probable cause to believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Id. (citing
2
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016)). Proceedings for the writ do not 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. Id. Unless the
petitioner can show that the circuit 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. Id. In habeas proceedings, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the statutory
maximum sentence. See Hobbs v. Turner, 2014 Ark. 19, 431 S.W.3d 283.
III. 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. Id.IV. Claim for Relief
Green maintains that he is entitled to habeas relief because the speedy-trial provision
of the IAD was violated. According to Green, he was not brought to trial within the required
180-day time frame as set forth in the IAD. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-95-101 art. III. In
essence, Green contends that he is entitled to habeas relief due to an alleged violation of a
speedy-trial provision. Such claims are not within the purview of habeas proceedings because
they are claims of trial error that do not implicate either the facial validity of the judgment
3
or the jurisdiction of the trial court. Wade v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 116, 623 S.W.3d 568. The
circuit court did not clearly err when it dismissed Green’s petition for habeas relief.
Affirmed.
Tevarius Green, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4