RONALD TRYON v. RAY HOBBSRONALD TRYON v. RAY HOBBS
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Ronald Tryon was found guilty by a jury in the Sebastian County Circuit Court of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and thеft by receiving. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. This court affirmed. Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007).
On July 29, 2010, appellant, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction by virtue of the convictions, filed in the circuit court in the county where he was incarcеrated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
Appellant nоw seeks by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief
Appellant failed to state a claim in his petition thаt was cognizable in a habeas proceeding. 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. Moore, 2010 Ark. 380; Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, а petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence1 must plead either the faciаl 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 at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798-99;
Appellant contendеd in his petition that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him
The claims were not sufficient to establish that the judgment was invalid on its face or thаt the trial court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. We first note that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (per curiam). Allegations concerning counsеl’s effectiveness are properly raised in a timely petition pursuant to our postconvictiоn rule, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010). Moore, 2010 Ark. 380; Hill, 2010 Ark. 287. A petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for proceeding under Rule 37.1. Johnson v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 459 (per curiam); Rickenbaker v. Norris, 361 Ark. 291, 206 S.W.3d 220 (2005).
With respect to appellant’s assertions of trial error and a failure to afford him due process of law, the issues could, and should, have been raised at trial or on the record on direct appeal. Such claims are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam). In determining whether the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus was proper, this court must look to the invalidity on the face of the judgment, not
Finally, appellant’s allegation that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because he had been declared incompetent in an Oklahoma court was not supported by convinсing argument to establish that a finding of incompetence in an out-of-state proceeding affected the Arkansas court’s jurisdiction. An argument without convincing citation to authority or convincing argument in its support that cannot be sustained without further research on the part of the court is not well taken. See Morgan v. State, 2010 Ark. 504 (per curiam); see also Watkins v. State, 2010 Ark. 156, 362 S.W.3d 910 (citing Weatherford v. State, 352 Ark. 324, 101 S.W.3d 227 (2003)).
As appellant fell short of establishing that the trial court in his case lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment wаs invalid on its face, there was no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Hill, 2010 Ark. 287.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.