Jamie Darnell Lee v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Cite as 2023 Ark. 2SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-22-340
Opinion Delivered: January 26, 2023
JAMIE DARNELL LEE
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 40CV-22-21]
DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, HONORABLE JODI RAINES
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF DENNIS, JUDGE
CORRECTION
APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Jamie Darnell Lee appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Lee’s
petition alleged that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him because the State
did not name him as the defendant in the body of the criminal information. Because this
omission did not impact the court’s personal jurisdiction over him, we affirm.
Lee is serving a life sentence for capital murder plus four consecutive twenty-year
sentences for first-degree-battery convictions. We affirmed Lee’s convictions on direct
appeal. Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504, 11 S.W.3d 553 (2000). Over twenty years later, Lee filed
this petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Lincoln County Circuit Court. Lee alleged
in his petition that he was not named in the body of the criminal information, and the
document did not identify him as the defendant. He argued that this failure prevented the
trial court from obtaining personal jurisdiction over him, violated state law, and violated his
state and federal constitutional due-process rights. The circuit court denied the petition for
writ of habeas corpus.
We will affirm a circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus unless
it is clearly erroneous. Goodwin v. Payne, 2022 Ark. 122. A writ of habeas corpus is proper
when a judgment of the conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks
jurisdiction over the cause. Id. A petitioner who does not allege actual innocence must plead
either the facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction by the trial court with an
affidavit or other probable-cause evidence showing that the petitioner is being illegally
detained. Id. Generally, habeas relief is not granted for defects in an information. See
Fuller/Akbar v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 155, 628 S.W.3d 366; Anderson v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 6, 564
S.W.3d 516.
Lee argues that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction because the information
was defective. We have been clear that “[a]n allegation of a defective information that does
not implicate the legality of the sentence is not a jurisdictional issue and is treated as trial
error.” Fuller/Akbar, 2021 Ark. 155, at 5, 628 S.W.3d at 369. Although Lee frames the
alleged defects in the information as an issue of personal jurisdiction, it is the commission of
the offenses in Miller County that gives a court personal jurisdiction over a defendant for
the charges and prosecution. See generally Anderson, 2019 Ark. 6, at 4, 564 S.W.3d at 518.
The failure to name Lee in the body of the information did not deprive the trial court of
personal jurisdiction over him. Moore v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 380, at 2 (“Even if there was an
error at trial in the amended information, the error would not take away the court’s personal
or subject-matter jurisdiction.”). And because the trial court had personal and subject-matter
jurisdiction over him, it could render the judgment. Thus, the circuit court was correct to
deny habeas relief on this ground.
2
Lee additionally claims that the State failed to comply with specific statutory
requirements of the indictment, including Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-403 (Repl. 2005), and
that the defects in the information violated his due-process rights and protection from
double jeopardy. Lee’s identification was not wholly absent from the information. He was
named in the case caption and was listed at the bottom of each page. Stapled to the
information was his “Final Disposition of Charge Report” with his essential information. It
listed Lee’s date of birth, sex, race, height, weight, hair and eye colors, and that he was also
known as “Squirrel.”
But Lee’s statutory and constitutional claims do not raise jurisdictional issues that
entitle him to habeas relief. The proper time to raise these issues is prior to or during trial.
Anderson v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 411, 473 S.W.3d 537 (due-process claims insufficient to
implicate validity of the judgment for habeas relief). We therefore do not address the merits
of these claims. We affirm the denial of Lee’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Affirmed.
James & Carter, PLC, by: Matt Stauffer, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3