Johnson v. HobbsJohnson v. Hobbs
PER CURIAM
On February 9, 2010, appellant Wilbert Johnson, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction by virtue of multiple criminal convictions, filed in the circuit court in the county where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
Appellant now seeks by pro se motions an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and to stay the appeal or in the alternative an extension of brief time. We need not address the merits of the motions because it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motions are moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of habeas
Appellant failed to state a claim in his petition that was cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus petition to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Moore, 2010 Ark. 380; 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 innocence1 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe” that he is illegally detained. Young, 365 Ark. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798-99;
In 2006, appellant was charged with theft by receiving, a Class C felony; aggravated assault; fleeing; and driving while intoxicated. In 2008, appellant entered a plea of guilty to theft by receiving and fleeing and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 300 months’
Appellant offered no authority for the propositions that amending an information deprives a court of jurisdiction to try the accused or that a habeas proceeding is a means to argue that the court failed to follow a procedural rule. We have held that a claim regarding amendment of the information is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam). Even if there was an error at trial in the amended information, the error would not take away the court’s personal or subject-matter jurisdiction. Id.; see also Moore, 2010 Ark. 380. A court with personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant in a criminal proceeding has authority to render judgment. Moore, 2010 Ark. 380;
Appellant strove to bring the court’s jurisdiction into question by asserting that any due-process violation, such as the claim that the court failed to ascertain that the plea of guilty was voluntarily and intelligently made, deprived the court of jurisdiction. The due-process claims asserted by appellant, however, were not such to render the judgment facially invalid or to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the authority of the court to hear and determine the subject matter. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). Appellant raised no challenge to his guilty plea that called into question the court’s authority.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.