DAVID HENDERSON v. STATE OF ARKANSASDAVID HENDERSON v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellant David Henderson was found guilty by a jury of attempted murder in the first degree, aggravated robbery, and residential burglary. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Henderson v. State, 360 Ark. 356, 201 S.W.3d 401 (2005).
In 2008, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and appellant brings this appeal. We find no error and affirm the order.
The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe” he is illegally detained. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case and is not a substitute for postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005)
Appellant raises four arguments for reversal of the circuit court order. In the first two arguments, he asserts that his petition satisfied the requirements of
Appellant next argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him because, despite the fact that he gave notice at trial of his intention to raise the defense of mental incompetence, the trial court proceeded without first determining his competence. Although appellant bases his argument on the contention that the court erred by not determining whether he was competent, he concedes that the court required that a mental evaluation be conducted before he was tried. Appellant seems to argue that jurisdiction was lost because the mental evaluation ordered by the trial court was flawed and failed to reflect his true mental condition. The argument does not state a ground for the writ to issue because it fails to demonstrate that the trial court lacked either personal or subject-matter jurisdiction in appellant‘s case. Any claim that appellant desired to raise regarding the evaluation was one that could have been raised in the trial court at the time of trial, and on the record on direct appeal. A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a convicted
In his third argument, appellant contends that the court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his petition and ordering another mental evaluation. He alleges that an evidentiary hearing and a mental evaluation would have established the validity of his claim that he was not competent to stand trial. The claim does not establish that a writ of habeas corpus should have been issued because the claim did not demonstrate that the trial court was without jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face. Again, the question of appellant‘s competency was addressed at trial, and any challenge he desired to raise could have been raised at that time and on the record on direct appeal. A hearing is not required if a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not state a basis for the writ to issue. See Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007).
Finally, appellant urges this court to overturn Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 484 (1989), on the ground that it illegally and unconstitutionally limits the authority of a circuit court to grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus and conflicts with
Affirmed.
No briefs filed.