Williams v. NorrisWilliams v. Norris
PER CURIAM
In 1983, аppellant Rodney D. Williams was found guilty by a jury of felony murder in the first degree and aggravated robbery. He was sentenced as a hаbitual offender to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Williams v. State, 281 Ark. 91, 663 S.W.2d 700 (1983), cert. denied., 469 U.S. 980 (1984).
In 2011, appellant, who was incarcerated at а unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction in Jefferson County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in thе Jefferson County Circuit Court.1 The circuit court dismissed the petition, and appellant lodged an appeal of that ordеr in this court. Now before us are appellant‘s motion to file belated reply brief and motion for duplication of the tendered reply brief at public expense.
We need not consider the motions, inasmuch as it is clear from the record that appellant
A writ of habeas corpus is only proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. 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 either thе 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.
Appellant argued in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that the writ should issue because he was not a habitual offender. Appellant raised essentially the same challenge to his habitual offender status in a petition filed in the trial court in 1996 pursuant to
Williams was convicted of first degree felony murder. At the time of his conviction, first degree murder wаs a Class Y felony that was punishable by a term of not
less than twenty (20) years nor more than sixty (60) years, or life. Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 41-1502 &41-1001 (Supp. 1983). Consequently, the life sеntence he received, regardless of the validity of the convictions that were used to enhance his sentence, was not facially invalid. See Bangs v. State, 310 Ark. 235, 835 S.W.2d 294 (1992).
Williams, CR 97-361, at 2 slip op.
In 2006, appellant again raised the issue in the trial court of whether his sentence was illegal based on the assertion that he was wrongfully found to be a habitual offender. The trial court denied relief, and we affirmed on appeal. Williams v. State, CR 97-559 (Ark. Oct. 11, 2007) (unpublished per curiam). We again noted that the life sentence was not illegal, regardless of the validity of the cоnvictions used to enhance it. Id. at 2.
In the instant habeas petition, appellant expanded his argument to contend that, if there was error in the determination that he was a habitual offender, then the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. He further asserted that he was denied due process of law on the ground that the State invoked the wrong habitual-offender statute tо enhance his sentence. Appellant has not shown a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.
Jurisdiction is the powеr of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 35; Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to heаr and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Id. It is true that we will treat allegations of void or illegal sentencеs similarly to the way that we treat problems of subject-matter jurisdiction. Friend v. State, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 12 (citing Taylor v. State, 354 Ark. 450, 125 S.W.3d 174 (2003)). Detention for an illegal period of time is what a writ of hаbeas corpus is designed to correct. Id. at 455, 125 S.W.3d at 178. However, a habeas-corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner
To the extent that the claim raised by aрpellant regarding the introduction into evidence of the prior convictions could have been construed as a сlaim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, allegations of ineffective assistance of cоunsel are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Rodgers v. State, 2011 Ark. 443 (per curiam); Willis v. State, 2011 Ark. 312; Tryon v. State, 2011 Ark. 76 (per curiam); Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (per curiam). Claims concerning counsel‘s effectivenеss are properly raised pursuant to
In short, none of appellant‘s claims in his petition raised a question of jurisdiction or established that the commitment wаs invalid on its face. Appellant‘s claims could have been
Because appellant failed to state cognizable claims, he did not meеt his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. Rodgers, 2011 Ark. 443; Henderson v. White, 2011 Ark. 361 (per curiam). Appellant could not, therefore, рrevail on appeal of the order denying his petition. Douthitt, 2011 Ark. 416; Dickinson v. State, 2011 Ark. 413 (per curiam).
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.