Van v. HobbsVan v. Hobbs
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 1996, Lamont Van was found guilty by a jury in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Van v. State, CR 96-1144 (Ark. Oct. 29, 1998) (unpublished per curiam).
In 2010, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
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 contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case was not substantiated with facts to establish a lack of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of the court
Appellant‘s claims of actual innocence were not cognizable as grounds to issue the writ in the county where he was incarcerated. A petitioner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus and alleges actual innocence must proceed in the trial court in accordance with Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as
Appellant‘s contention that there was error in the admission of evidence is a claim of trial error, and mere trial error, even if established, is a matter to be addressed at trial. Daniels, 2011 Ark. 192. It is not grounds for habeas relief. Tryon, 2011 Ark. 76; see also Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a convicted defendant an opportunity to retry his case, and it is not a substitute for direct appeal. Key v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 61 (per curiam); Henderson v. State, 2010 Ark. 30 (per curiam) (citing Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000) (per curiam)).
With respect to appellant‘s allegation that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel in the trial court, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not within the purview
Finally, turning to appellant‘s assertion that a writ of habeas corpus should issue because he was not given proper notice of an amendment to the Information in his case, if appellant was contending that the amendment deprived the court of jurisdiction, this court has consistently held that the proper time to object to the form or sufficiency of an indictment or information is prior to trial. See 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 appeal when there was no proper objection in the court below. Prince, 304 Ark. 692. If we considered the issue to be jurisdictional, we could overlook the failure to object and reverse the conviction, if necessary, on our own motion. See Jones v. State, 297 Ark. 485, 763 S.W.2d 81 (1989). Accordingly, appellant did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. If the claim was one of trial error, it should have been addressed in the trial court. Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 88 (per curiam); see also State v. Eason & Fletcher, 200 Ark. 112, 143 S.W.2d 22 (1940). A nonjurisdictional challenge to the sufficiency of an
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.