Bradford v. StateBradford v. State
PER CURIAM
On December 15, 2009, appellant Roger Bradford filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County, where he was incarcerated. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant now appeals the circuit court‘s decision. He raises thirteen points for reversal. We find no merit in any of the issues raised and affirm.
In the petition, appellant challenged several of his convictions. In the heading of his petition for the writ and the introductory paragraphs, appellant indicated that he only challengеd one judgment against him, a 1996 conviction for delivery of a controlled substance in case number CR 92-28, which we note was entered in Arkansas County Circuit Court, Southern District. In the body of the petition, aрpellant complained that several of his numerous other convictions were also invalid, and he devotes a portion of his argument on appeal to issues concerning other convictions. In order to simplify matters, we note that the public records of the Arkansas Department of Correction (“ADC“) indicate that appellant is currently serving terms on three sеntences: six years’ incarceration on a 1990 conviction for second-degree
Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allеge actual innocence2 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the circuit court and make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence [of] prоbable cause to believe” that he is being illegally detained. Wilkins v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 169 (per curiam);
Initially, appellant argues that he was denied due proсess because the circuit court did not hold a hearing on his petition. However, we have noted that, “[w]hile our statutory habeas corpus scheme contemplates a hearing in thе event the writ is issued, we find nothing requiring a hearing be given any petitioner regardless of the content of the petition.” Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 323, 819 S.W.2d 702, 704 (1991) (quoting George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141, 142 (1985)). A hearing is not required on a habeas petition, even where the petition alleges an otherwise cognizable ground, when probable cause for the issuance of the writ is not shown
Appellant also contends that the circuit court failed to make written findings to support its decision. As authority for this requirement, appellant cites
Appellant bases the remainder of his arguments on appeаl, as he did in his petition for the writ, on his 1996 conviction for delivery of a controlled substance, for which he was sentenced to life in prison. The arguments that he raised in the petition concerning the validity of his other convictions appeared to be directed to the use of those convictions to enhance his sentence; he did not appear to have sought hаbeas relief as to anything other than a life sentence, although there is some possibility that he may also have intended to challenge the judgment in his 1995 conviction for possession of а controlled substance with intent to deliver on the basis that the sentence was improperly enhanced.3 There was evidence attached to appellant‘s petition that аppeared to support the proposition that the records of the ADC, at the time, reflected that appellant was subject to an additional life sentence on his 1996 conviction in Arkansas County Circuit Court, Southern District, case number CR 92-28, for delivery of a controlled substance.
Under the circumstances, appellant‘s challenge to this conviction in CR 92-28, even if valid at the time the petition was filed, is moot, as any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy. Anderson, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403; see also Chappell v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 220 (per curiam) (a circuit court does not have jurisdiction to issue the writ if a prisoner is not in custody in that court‘s jurisdiction); Neely v. McCastlain, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424 (circuit court did not have jurisdiction over habeas-corpus claim where the petitioner was not in custody). The same is true of any allegations concerning any other conviction for which appellant is not now incarcеrated; any claims not pertaining to appellant‘s conviction in CR 92-1 would not therefore support habeas relief.
To the extent that appellant may have contended that his conviction in CR 92-1 was invalid because some of the judgments used to enhance his sentence were invalid, he failed to present a claim that would support habeas relief. An allegаtion concerning a defect in the validity of prior convictions used to enhance a sentence is only treated as jurisdictional if the allegation concerns the failure to аppoint counsel. See Camp v. State, 364 Ark. 459, 221 S.W.3d 365 (2006). Even if a conviction is later overturned on appeal, for purposes of sentence enhancement, a conviction is final when judgment is pronоunced. Birchett v. State, 291 Ark. 379, 724 S.W.2d 492 (1987). Appellant‘s claims do not constitute a challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court over the charge or to the facial validity of the commitment order. Consequently, appellant has stated no grounds upon which the writ could properly issue.
With regard to his 1994 conviction for second-degree escape, appellant contendsthat he received an illegal fifteen-year sentence and that the circuit courtwrongfully dismissed his appeal from the conviction.6 To the extent that appellant would directly challenge this conviction, however, as already noted, the sentence that appellant received for this conviction has since expired. See Bradford v. State, 2011 Ark. 359 (per curiam) (citing Anderson, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403). To the extent that he would raise the issuе of validity of the sentence concerning its use to enhance his life sentence in his 1995 conviction, as discussed above, he failed to raise a claim that would support relief.
The sаme is true of appellant‘s claims with regard to his 1990 conviction for second-degree escape.7 The six-year sentence he received for that offense has passed, and, thus, any argument he now advances to challenge it directly is moot. Id. Any challenge concerning its use for enhancement purposes failed to raise a cognizable claim.
Affirmed.