EDWARD CAVE v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-19-321
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
April 23, 2020
2020 Ark. 156
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 39CV-19-21], HONORABLE E. DION WILSON, JUDGE, AFFIRMED.
Appellant Edward Cave appeals the denial by the circuit court of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, Cave argues that the circuit court erred because it denied his petition without citing any case law. We affirm.
I. Standard of Review
A circuit court‘s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is 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 made. Id.
II. Nature of the Writ
Cave seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
The writ of habeas corpus shall be granted forthwith by any of the officers enumerated in
§ 16-112-102(a) to any person who shall apply for the writ by petition showing, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe he or she is detained without lawful authority, is imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail, or who has alleged actual innocence of the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted.
III. Cave‘s Habeas Petition
In his habeas petition, Cave asserts that he is being unlawfully detained because his arrest and conviction was based on the false testimony of Suzen Cooper, who had a lengthy criminal history. He asserts that
IV. Background
Cave was committed to the Arkansas Department of Correction after a Grant County Circuit Court jury found Cave guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of maintaining a drug premises. An aggregate sentence of 720 months’ imprisonment was imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Cave v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 212, 518 S.W.3d 134. The charges against Cave arose out of a “controlled buy” wherein a confidential informant, who was Cave‘s neighbor, purchased drugs from Cave at Cave‘s residence. The buy was part of a multicounty drug task-force operation under the supervision of Agent Eddie Keathley. Cave argued on direct appeal that the State failed to establish substantial evidence of the three offenses, contending, among other arguments, that Keathley did not observe the delivery of the drugs to the paid informant, Suzie Cooper, and that the informant was not credible. Cave specifically raised Cooper‘s credibility as an issue in his direct appeal wherein he discussed her criminal history. The court of appeals held that there was substantial evidence to sustain the judgment on each charge. Id.
V. Argument on Appeal
Cave first argues that he is actually innocent because his arrest and conviction was based on the false testimony of Cooper, who should not have been believed. We reject this argument.
The claims that Cave makes regarding Cooper‘s credibility do not constitute a valid assertion that he is being unlawfully detained. Cooper‘s credibility was challenged in his jury trial and again on direct appeal. A habeas action does not afford a petitioner the opportunity to retry his or her case. Watkins v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 215, 549 S.W.3d 908. The legality of Cave‘s detention was established at his trial and affirmed in his direct appeal.
Cave next argues that the writ should issue because he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. We note, however, that while Cave refers to a “belated”
By our adoption of
Finally, Cave makes no argument on appeal with regard to the apparent scrivener‘s error on some of the court documents. We deemed this issue to have been abandoned on appeal.
Affirmed.
WOOD and WOMACK, JJ., concur without opinion.
Edward Cave, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att‘y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass‘t Att‘y Gen., for appellee.