APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; PRO SE MOTIONS
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND TO CORRECT THE DOCKET NUMBER
ON THE COVER SHEET [NO. 40CV-17-102] HONORABLE JODI RAINES
RHONDAK.WOOD, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.
appellant Theodore Anderson's third appeal from an order
denying his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. We
affirm because Anderson's habeas petition raises only
issues that this court has previously considered and rejected
a bench trial, Anderson was convicted on charges of
residential burglary, domestic battering, and rape. The trial
court imposed an aggregate sentence of 240 months'
imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Anderson v. State, CR 07-900 (Ark. App. Feb. 20,
2008) (unpublished). In 2010, Anderson filed his first
petition for habeas relief under Arkansas Code Annotated
sections 16-112-101-123 (Repl. 2016). The circuit court
denied his petition. On appeal, this court affirmed the
denial, finding Anderson's petition without merit.
Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 35 (per curiam).
subsequent habeas petition, Anderson pursued the same issues.
Once again, the circuit court rejected Anderson's
petition and this court affirmed its ruling. Anderson v.
Kelley, 2015 Ark. 411, 473 S.W.3d 537 (per curiam).
present habeas petition, Anderson continues to allege that
the trial court lacked jurisdiction because his case was
incorrectly filed in a juvenile court. He also contends that
he is illegally detained insofar as his arrest was
procedurally defective, he was not properly arraigned and did
not enter a plea on the record, the criminal information
charging him was defective, and the deputy prosecuting
attorney did not have authority to sign the
information. In accordance with our previous rulings,
we find these claims without merit. Anderson, 2015
Ark. 411, 473 S.W.3d 537.
circuit court's decision on a petition for habeas relief
is upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v.
Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is
clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing
the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake was made. Id. A writ of
habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is
invalid on its face or when the trial court lacked
jurisdiction over the cause. Story v. State, 2017
Ark. 358. It is the petitioner's burden to establish
probable cause, by affidavit or other evidence, that he is
being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. §
16-112-103(a)(1); Garrison v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 8,
534 S.W.3d 136. Unless the petitioner satisfies this showing,
there is no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.
Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
frames his allegations as issues of jurisdiction. Yet his
claims, with one exception, are simply allegations of trial
error. While claims of defective information that raise a
jurisdictional issue-such as a claim of an illegal
sentence-are cognizable in habeas proceedings, general
defective information allegations are not. Clay v.
Kelley, 2017 Ark. 294, 528 S.W.3d 836. Indeed, such
assertions of trial error and due-process violations do not
implicate the facial validity of a trial court's judgment
or jurisdiction. Ratliff v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 105,
541 S.W.3d 408.
defective information claims advanced in Anderson's
petition are claims of trial error. Because a writ of habeas
corpus will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities
that occurred at trial, his claims fall outside the scope of
remedy afforded by the writ. Barber v. Kelley, 2017
Ark. 214. A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an
opportunity to retry his or her case. Id.
only viable allegation is that the trial court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to try adult, criminal cases. But
as this court previously explained, this claim is without
merit. See Young v. Ark. Dep't of Human
Servs., 2012 Ark. 334.
circuit court did not clearly err in declining to issue the
writ. Affirmed; motion to correct docket number granted;
motion for appointment of counsel moot.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, concurring.
agree with the majority's disposition of this case, I
write separately because I cannot sign on to the
majority's intimation that an allegation of a defective
information is somehow a claim of "trial error."
Allegations of deficiencies in the information are
traditionally addressed with a motion to quash filed in the
circuit court, before the jury decides guilt at trial. See,
e.g., Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 918 S.W.3d 114
(1996); Dupree v. State, 271 Ark. 50, 607 S.W.2d 356
(1980). Instead, it would be more accurate to state that a
failure to assert a deficiency contained in the information
(excluding deficiencies that would deprive the circuit court
of jurisdiction) before trial or plea amounts to a waiver of
the deficiency. See Geoates v. State, 206 Ark. 654,
176 S.W.2d 919 (1944) ("The irregularity, if
objectionable to the defendant, should ...