Roy Eldridge Davis v. William Straughn, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction, 2020 Ark. 169

In 1988 Roy Eldridge Davis was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and, as a habitual offender, sentenced to life; this court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
In 2019 Davis filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-101 in the county of his incarceration, claiming the felony information was invalid because it was signed by a deputy prosecuting attorney rather than the prosecuting attorney, and therefore the judgment was void and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
The circuit court denied and dismissed the habeas petition; Davis moved for default judgment and to amend the petition, which the court treated as motions for reconsideration and denied.
The court reviewed the statutory standard that habeas relief (outside of post-conviction scientific-testing claims) is limited to facial invalidity of the commitment order or lack of jurisdiction and requires a showing of probable cause by affidavit or other evidence; inquiry is limited to the face of the commitment order.
The court found that deputies are statutorily authorized to sign felony informations and that a deputy’s signature does not, without more, deprive the court of jurisdiction or render the judgment void on its face; Davis failed to state a basis for the writ.
The supreme court affirmed the denial of the habeas petition; Justice Hart concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority’s narrow description of habeas scope.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an information signed by a deputy prosecutor renders the judgment void or deprives the circuit court of jurisdiction	Davis: Deputy did not personally sign; information unsigned by prosecutor makes judgment void and court lacked jurisdiction	State: Statute and precedent authorize deputy to sign; signature by deputy does not deprive court of jurisdiction	Court: Deputy authorized to sign; signature alone does not show lack of jurisdiction or facial invalidity; habeas relief not warranted
Whether petitioner pleaded facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction with probable-cause evidence required for habeas	Davis: Argued jurisdictional defect based on signature issue (raised in habeas)	State: Signature issue is trial-error/sufficiency-of-information claim that must be raised at trial and does not satisfy habeas standard	Court: Davis failed to show facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction or provide probable-cause evidence; claim is trial error, not cognizable on habeas

Martindale v. Honey, 259 Ark. 416 (1976) (deputy prosecutor may sign information on behalf of prosecuting attorney)
State v. Eason, 200 Ark. 1112 (1940) (presumption deputy acts under superior; deputy-signed information is voidable only and sufficient to confer jurisdiction)
Anderson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 222 (2018) (general defective-information allegations that do not show illegality of judgment or lack of jurisdiction are trial error, not habeas grounds)
McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220 (2019) (habeas inquiry is limited to face of commitment order)
Foreman v. State, 2019 Ark. 108 (2019) (writ proper only when judgment invalid on its face or court lacked jurisdiction)
Prince v. State, 304 Ark. 692 (1991) (challenge to sufficiency of indictment/information must be made prior to trial)