Morgan v. StateMorgan v. State
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2003, appellant Jeff Morgan was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping, a Class Y felony, and second-degree battery. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Morgan v. State, 359 Ark. 168, 195 S.W.3d 889 (2004).
On February 24, 2011, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
We need not address the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record that
Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted. The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus 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. Daniels v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 192 (per curiam) (citing Jackson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 49, 378 S.W.3d 103); Moore, 2010 Ark. 380; Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner 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;
Appellant’s entirely conclusory contentions of trial error did not demonstrate that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment entered was facially invalid. Assertions of trial error are not cognizable as grounds for a writ of habeas corpus. Clem v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 311 (per curiam). Likewise, appellant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for a Class Y kidnapping was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, not an
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Anderson, 2011 Ark. 35; Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Id. Appellant raised no argument that called into question the court’s jurisdiction. He further made no showing that the commitment in his case was invalid. Because the petition did not state a basis to warrant issuance of the writ, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought.
With respect to appellant’s request for a hearing on the petition for writ of habeas corpus, the statutes governing habeas proceedings,
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.