Willis v. HobbsWillis v. Hobbs
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Carl Willis was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault in the second degree and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. In 2010, he filed in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
The petition was denied, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. Now before us are appellant’s motions seeking an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and for the State to duplicate the brief for him. We need not address the merits of the motions because it is clear
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;
If there was a speedy trial issue to be raised, it could have been raised in the trial court. The right to a speedy trial may be waived, and the issue is not cognizable in a habeas
With respect to appellant’s claims that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel in the trial court, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Tryon v. State, 2011 Ark. 76 (per curiam); Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (per curiam). Allegations concerning counsel’s effectiveness are properly raised in a timely petition pursuant to our postconviction rule,
As to appellant’s contention that he was mistreated while in custody, the assertion is not one that calls into question the trial court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the commitment. A habeas proceeding is a narrow remedy, not a “catch-all” to address all matters related to a criminal charge or judgment of conviction.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.