Boivin v. HobbsBoivin v. Hobbs
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Matthew Boivin appeals from the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In 1997, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. In 2010, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Henson v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 363 (per curiam). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there was evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.
The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there
In his petition, appellant asserted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case and that he was being held pursuant to an illegal conviction that was illegal on its face. In support thereof, appellant raised the following alleged violations of the rules of criminal procedure and his constitutional rights: he was illegally seized for questioning by police; he was not properly Mirandized; he was arrested without probable cause; he was denied a hearing on, and suppression of, an illegal confession; his confession was the result of a promise of leniency; his guilty plea was rendered involuntarily. Appellant’s claim that his guilty plea was involuntary does not warrant habeas relief, however, as allegations of an involuntary plea or improper plea procedures do not raise a question of a void or illegal sentence such as may be addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam).
Nor do the remainder of appellant’s claims warrant relief. In determining whether the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper, this court must look to the invalidity on the face of the judgment. Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam). While appellant attempts to couch his claims as defects that result in an invalid judgment or a lack of jurisdiction,
On a final note, we decline to address appellant’s claim in his appellate brief that his due process rights were violated by the circuit court’s failure to summon the State until two days before the circuit court’s order denying his petition. Aside from one bare citation addressing due process in general, appellant has failed to cite to any authority for his proposition. This court will not consider arguments, even constitutional ones, that are not supported by legal authority or convincing argument and will not address arguments when it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well taken. Henderson v. State, 2010 Ark. 30 (per curiam).
Because appellant fell short of establishing that the circuit court in his case lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there was no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order.
Affirmed.
3