JESSIE HILL v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-13-132
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
October 10, 2013
2013 Ark. 413
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 35CV-12-497, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE]
PER CURIAM
In 1995, appellant Jessie Hill was found guilty by a jury in the Grant County Circuit Court of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Hill v. State, 325 Ark. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (1996). Appellant subsequently pursued various unsuccessful postconviction remedies.1
On August 31, 2012, appellant filed in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, the county
The circuit court denied appellant‘s claims, and appellant timely lodged this appeal.3 Now before us is appellant‘s motion to file a supplemental brief. Because it is clear thаt appellant could not prevail on appeal even if the motion were granted, we dismiss the appeal, and the motion is therefore moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (per curiam). In appeals of postconviction proceеdings, we will not reverse a circuit court‘s decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous. Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing
Thе petitions, filed August 31 and October 2, were treated as petitions for writ of habeas corpus and denied on the grounds that appellant failed to allege the facial invalidity of the judgment-and-commitment order or that the Grant County Circuit Court acted outside of its jurisdiction. The circuit court further found that appellant failed to present any evidence establishing probable cause that he was being illegally detained. We agree that appellant stated no basis to support issuance of the writ.
A writ of habeas corpus is only proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Girley v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 447 (per curiam); Abernathy v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 335 (per curiam). The burden is on the petitioner in a habeas-corpus petition to establish that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no bаsis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 оf 2001 Acts of Arkansas must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction by the circuit court and must additionally make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained.
In support of issuance of the writ, appellant raised allegations of prosecutorial and police misсonduct, ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of access to effective assistance of counsel, due-process and equal-protеction violations, sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, and various trial errors. Such claims are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding because they do not call into question the jurisdiction of the circuit court or the facial validity of the judgment-and-commitment order. Murphy, 2013 Ark. 155 (ineffective-assistance-of-cоunsel claims are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding); McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 361 (per curiam) (due-process allegations are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding); Craig v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 218 (per curiam) (chаllenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and admissibility of evidence are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding); Tryon v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 76 (per curiam) (due process and proseсutorial misconduct are matters of trial error and are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding).
Because appellant failed to show that the сircuit court 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. See Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Tarkington v. Norris, 2012 Ark. 147 (per curiam). Appellant‘s allegations were, or should have been, raised and argued at trial, on direct appeal, or in a timely petition for postconviction relief.
Appellant also alleged actual innocence and asserted that results of fingеrprint analyses performed on the murder weapon and on the trunk of the vehicle in which the victim was
In the remaining pleadings filed in the circuit court, appellant allеged that Richard Gallagher, the Custodian of Records for the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, failed to comply with his FOIA requests, in which he requested copies of the results оf the fingerprint analyses performed on the murder weapon and on the trunk of the vehicle in which the victim was placed. Appellant requested that the circuit cоurt issue a subpoena and an order requiring Gallagher to provide copies of the requested documents, issue an arrest warrant for Gallagher, schedule a hearing on the matter, and issue an order requiring appellant‘s presence at the requested hearing.
We have previously addressed appellant‘s claims that he is entitled to copies of the fingerprint analyses in Hill, 2012 Ark. 309. There, we explained that the FOIA does not require a court to provide photocopying at public expеnse and that, to demonstrate entitlement to photocopying at public expense, the burden is on the petitioner to establish some compelling need for certain documentary evidence to support an allegation contained in a timely postconviction petition. Id. (citing Avery v. State, 2009 Ark. 528 (per curiam)). As was the case before, appеllant has not demonstrated a compelling need for the requested documents to be provided to him at public expense. We further note that appellant‘s request
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.