Gardner v. Hobbs

Cite as 2015 Ark. 410
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-15-220
Opinion Delivered November 5, 2015
GARY GARDNER PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 40CV-14-72]
V.
HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS JUDGE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
In 2003, appellant Gary Gardner entered a plea of guilty in the Poinsett County Circuit
Court to first-degree murder. He was sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment. On October
14, 2014, Gardner filed in the Lincoln County Circuit Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus. The circuit court denied Gardner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding he made
no allegation that his judgment-and-commitment order was invalid on its face or that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction. Gardner filed a timely notice of appeal from the denial of habeas relief.
A circuit court’s denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court’s findings are
clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, at 5, 434 S.W.3d 364, 367. A writ of habeas
corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the cause. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416. The burden is on the petitioner in
a habeas-corpus petition to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment-
and-commitment order 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
Cite as 2015 Ark. 410
curiam). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and
make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe” that he is illegally
detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798. Here, the circuit court correctly determined that
Gardner did not allege grounds in his petition on which the writ could be granted.
On appeal, Gardner contends that he was denied his right to counsel during four
questioning sessions with law-enforcement officers that resulted in his giving two statements;
that the trial court failed to establish a factual basis for his plea to first-degree murder because
he did not kill the victim with “purposeful intent” and he would not have pled guilty knowing
the element of intent; and that the circuit court erroneously found his habeas-corpus petition
constituted a “strike” under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607. Gardner failed to
raise grounds cognizable in a habeas proceeding, and this court affirms the circuit court’s
dismissal of the petition.
Although Gardner contends that he did not waive his right to counsel during questioning
and that he, in fact, specifically requested counsel, he fails to argue in what manner any pretrial
constitutional or procedural violation implicates the jurisdiction of the trial court or renders the
judgment-and-commitment order invalid on its face. See, e.g., Tolefree v. State, 2014 Ark. 26, at 4
(per curiam). Gardner’s contentions that a violation of his pretrial right to counsel or that his
statements were somehow coerced are claims that are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (per curiam). A habeas-corpus petition does not afford a prisoner
a means to revisit the merits of matters that could have been addressed and settled in the trial
court, on appeal, or in a postconviction proceeding. Tolefree, 2013 Ark. 26.
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 410
Gardner’s claim that the court failed to establish a factual basis for his first-degree murder
plea is not a cognizable claim in a habeas-corpus proceeding. A guilty plea is more than a
confession that the accused did various acts; “it is an admission that he committed the crime
charged against him.” Fields, 2013 Ark. 416, at 6 (quoting United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570
(1989)). An allegation that concerns the factual basis for a plea goes beyond the face of the
judgment-and-commitment order and is not the kind of inquiry to be addressed in a habeas
proceeding. Id. To the extent that Gardner’s claim is an attack on his plea proceeding, his
argument still fails. When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the plea is his or her trial. Crockett
v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984). Accordingly, claims of trial error are not within
the purview of the remedy inasmuch as a writ of habeas corpus will not be issued to correct
errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. See Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702
(1991). Habeas proceedings are also not a means to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
in a case. Griffis v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 121, 458 S.W.3d 703 (per curiam). Claims of an involuntary
plea or improper plea procedures do not raise a question of facial invalidity or the court’s
jurisdiction such as may be addressed in a habeas-corpus proceeding. Id.
Gardner’s final claim on appeal addresses his contention that the circuit court erred by
designating the dismissal of his habeas-corpus petition with prejudice as a “strike.” Gardner
makes a conclusory allegation and fails to cite to any authority in support of his argument or to
make a convincing legal argument otherwise, and this court will not research or develop the
argument for an appellant. See Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). Because
Gardner’s petition for habeas corpus failed to state a cognizable claim, the circuit court properly
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. 410
declared the petition a strike. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607 (Repl. 2005)
precludes an incarcerated person from bringing a civil action or an appeal therefrom when he
has, on three or more prior occasions, brought an action that was frivolous, malicious, or failed
to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Inasmuch as Gardner’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus clearly failed to state a claim on which relief was merited, it was not error for the
circuit court to declare that the petition constituted a strike under the statute. See Tucker v.
Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 449, at 4–5 (citing McArty v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 257 (per curiam), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 371 (2012)).
Affirmed.
Gary Gardner, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4