Mister v. Kelley, 575 S.W.3d 410

Appellant Sharvelt Mister, pro se and incarcerated, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court challenging his convictions for two counts of delivery of cocaine (convictions previously affirmed on direct appeal).
Mister asserted the magistrate never issued an arrest warrant, the criminal information was filed without supporting documentation, and evidence was therefore tainted by the "fruit of the poisonous tree."
The circuit court denied and dismissed the habeas petition. Mister appealed the denial.
Mister did not proceed under Act 1780 (actual-innocence pathway) and did not allege facial invalidity of the judgment or lack of jurisdiction with supporting probable-cause affidavit/evidence.
The majority held Mister’s claims were trial errors or Fourth-Amendment/evidence admissibility issues not cognizable in habeas; a defective arrest or lack of warrant is not a jurisdictional defect preventing trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of arrest / absence of warrant	Mister: magistrate never issued an arrest warrant; arrest invalid	State: arrest defects do not deprive trial court of jurisdiction	Held: Arrest flaw is not jurisdictional; trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; claim not cognizable in habeas
Sufficiency/defect in criminal information	Mister: information filed without supporting documents; information defective	State: allegation is trial error, not facial invalidity or jurisdictional defect	Held: General defective-information claim is trial error and not cognizable in habeas
Fourth Amendment / unlawful search and seizure	Mister: evidence admitted was fruit of poisonous tree due to lack of warrant	State: Fourth Amendment/evidence-admissibility claims are constitutional trial errors	Held: Such constitutional/evidentiary claims are trial errors that do not implicate facial invalidity or jurisdiction and are not cognizable in habeas
Procedural posture / pleading standard for habeas	Mister: sought habeas relief pro se without invoking Act 1780	State: petitioner must plead facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction and show probable cause unless proceeding under Act 1780	Held: Mister failed to meet statutory pleading/showing requirements for habeas; dismissal affirmed

Philyaw v. Kelley, 477 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. 2015) (describing when habeas corpus is proper)
Davis v. Kelley, 564 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. 2019) (habeas is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief)
Singleton v. State, 510 S.W.2d 283 (Ark. 1974) (defect in arrest does not destroy trial court jurisdiction)
Anderson v. Kelley, 549 S.W.3d 913 (Ark. 2018) (general defective-information claims are trial error, not habeas grounds)
Collier v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 170 (Ark. 2018) (petition must show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity to obtain habeas)
Jackson v. Norris, 378 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2011) (discussed by majority and criticized in dissent regarding scope of state habeas)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (U.S. Supreme Court decision cited in dissent as limiting state court narrowing of habeas relief)