Bakkala v. Hobbs

Cite as 2015 Ark. 214
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-14-1084
CRAIG BAKKALA Opinion Delivered May 14, 2015
APPELLANT
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT;
MOTIONS FOR COPIES, FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND
RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ADDENDUM
APPELLEE [NO. 39CV-14-83]
HONORABLE RICHARD L.
PROCTOR, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR COPIES
DENIED; MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
ADDENDUM MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Craig Bakkala, an inmate in the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lee County Circuit Court, which is the circuit court of
the county where appellant was incarcerated.1 The petition sought relief from a Greene County
Circuit Court judgment convicting appellant of rape. The circuit court denied the petition, and
appellant lodged this appeal. The appeal has been fully briefed, and appellant has filed three
motions in which he requests permission to file a supplemental addendum, a copy of his brief,
and appointment of counsel.
A circuit court’s denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court’s findings are
1
As of the date of this opinion, appellant remains incarcerated in Lee County.
Cite as 2015 Ark. 214
clearly erroneous. Henderson v. State, 2014 Ark. 180 (per curiam). In this case, the circuit court
correctly determined that the claims raised in appellant’s petition were not cognizable in habeas
proceedings.
In the petition seeking the writ, appellant alleged that his confession was coerced, that
he did not understand the plea that he entered, and that his attorney misled him and was
otherwise ineffective. Intertwined in these allegations were assertions that the evidence against
him was insufficient to support the charge and that there were errors made in accepting his plea.
Appellant alleged, in summation, that counsel’s representation of him was so defective that it
rendered his plea invalid and that the judgment was therefore invalid on its face.
Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his actual innocence and
proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas 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 is illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-
103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006). The burden is on the petitioner in proceedings for a writ of habeas
corpus 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.
Arnett v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 540 (per curiam).
Although appellant attempted to frame the issues in his petition as a claim that the
commitment was invalid on its face, his allegations are based on claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are properly raised in the trial court
in a timely proceeding under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, and a petition for writ
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. 214
of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a petition under the rule. Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. 41 (per
curiam). Assertions of trial error, such as appellant’s allegations of a coerced confession, are not
claims cognizable in proceedings for the writ. Murphy v. State, 2013 Ark. 155 (per curiam). To
the extent that appellant contended that his plea proceedings were not proper, the claims were
likewise not the type of claim cognizable in habeas proceedings. Washington v. State, 2011 Ark.
360 (per curiam).
When a petitioner in a habeas proceeding fails to raise a claim within the purview of a
habeas action, the petitioner fails to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for the writ to
issue. Sims, 2015 Ark. 41. Because appellant stated no cognizable claim in the petition, the trial
court was not clearly erroneous in denying relief on the petition. Because we affirm the circuit
court’s denial of the habeas petition, the motions requesting appointment of counsel and
permission to file a supplemental addendum are moot.
Appellant requests a copy of his brief for use in future proceedings, but he has not
identified the nature of any proceedings that he seeks to pursue or the issues that he intends to
raise. He therefore fails to show a compelling need for a copy of the brief that would warrant
providing him with a copy at public expense. Williamson v. State, 2015 Ark. 85 (per curiam); see
also Khabir v. State, 2014 Ark. 369 (per curiam). We therefore deny the motion for copies.
Affirmed; motion for copies denied; motions for appointment of counsel and to file
supplemental addendum moot.
3