Jones v. StateJones v. State
In 2009, appellant Charles Edward Jones was found guilty by a jury in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of four counts of rape. He was sentenced to four сonsecutive terms of 480 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Jones v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 324.
In 2013, appellant, who was incarсerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction in Pulaski County, filed a pro se petition for writ of hаbeas corpus in the trial court under the docket number for the criminal case.1 The trial court denied the petition, and
In the petition, appellant raised the following grounds for issuance of the writ: there was no probable cause for the arrest warrant issued in his case; the felony information did not advise him of the chargеs; unsworn and unsigned affidavits were utilized in the pretrial proceedings; he was denied due process and equal prоtection of law. A writ of habeas corpus is proper only when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face оr when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Meadows v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 440 (per curiam); Burgie v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 360 (per curiam); Abernathy v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 335 (per curiam); Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 873 S.W.2d 524 (1994). 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. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). The petitioner must plead еither the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence [of] probable cause to believe” that he is illegally detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798–99.
None of the allegations raised by appellant called into question the trial court‘s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the judgment-and-commitment order. Assertions of trial еrror, including claims pertaining to due process and equal protection, are not sufficient to implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 413 (per curiam); see also Smith v. Smith, 2013 Ark. 481 (per curiam) (Due process claims are nоt cognizable in a habeas proceeding.); Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (per curiam); McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 361 (per curiam); Craig v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 218 (per curiam) (Attacks on the sufficiency of the evidence аnd the admissibility of evidence are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.).
This court has specifically held that a court‘s jurisdiction to try an accused does not depend upon the validity of an arrest. Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (per curiam); Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). An illegal arrеst, standing alone, does not vitiate a valid conviction. Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994). Issues related to the validity of appellant‘s arrest аre factual issues that should have been addressed in the trial court. See Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97.
Likewise, with respect to the sufficiency of thе felony information, we have consistently held that the proper time to object to the form or sufficiency of a charging instrument is prior to trial. Murry v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 29 (per curiam); see also Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 88 (per curiam); Prince v. State, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46 (1991); England v. State, 234 Ark. 421, 352 S.W.2d 582 (1962). We have declined to review the sufficiency of an information on appеal when there was no proper objection in the court below. Prince, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46. If we considered the issue to be jurisdictionаl, we could have overlooked the failure to object and reversed the conviction, if necessary, оn our own motion. See Jones v. State, 297 Ark. 485, 763 S.W.2d 81 (1989). Accordingly, appellant here did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction by virtue of a defective information.
Affirmed; motion moot.