PRO SE
MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND TO DISMISS
APPEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, [JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. 35CV-18-956].
COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
Appellant
Anarian Chad Jackson filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the circuit court of the county where he was
incarcerated that the circuit court denied. In the habeas
petition, Jackson challenged a judgment and commitment order
reflecting his 2002 conviction for first-degree murder and
life sentence that this court affirmed on appeal. Jackson
v. State, 359 Ark. 297, 197 S.W.3d 468 (2004). After
lodging an appeal of the order denying his habeas petition in
this court, Jackson filed a motion for extension of time to
file his brief. He later filed a motion in which he asked
that this court dismiss the appeal without prejudice so that
he might bring new evidence and arguments in the circuit
court.
We need
not consider the motions because it is clear from the record
that Jackson cannot prevail on appeal. We dismiss the appeal,
and the motions are moot.
Jackson
alleged in his habeas petition that the judgment and
commitment order was void and facially invalid because the
judge who signed the commitment order was not the judge who
presided over his trial. He cites Waddle v. Sargent,
313 Ark. 539, 855 S.W.2d 919 (1993), for the proposition that
once an order of assignment has been entered, the assignment
deprives any other judge of authority to act in the
proceedings. The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied the
habeas petition, finding that both judges, the one who
presided over the trial and the one who signed the commitment
order, were elected in the same judicial district. The
circuit court's ruling was based on its determination
that both judges had authority to act within that district,
citing Lukach v. State, 2018 Ark. 208, 548 S.W.3d
810, for the proposition that a challenge to the authority of
a judge who is within the territorial boundaries of the
judicial district that the judge serves does not raise an
issue of subject-matter jurisdiction and is therefore not a
claim cognizable in habeas proceedings.
An
appeal from an order that denied a petition for
postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that
denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, will not be
permitted to go forward when it is clear that the appellant
could not prevail. Garrison v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 8,
534 S.W.3d 136. A circuit court, in proceedings other than
those under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, [1] has personal
jurisdiction over the prison officials who detain a prisoner
seeking the writ, and it has authority to return the writ
when that prisoner is incarcerated within the jurisdiction of
the court from which he or she seeks the writ. Muldrow v.
Kelley, 2018 Ark. 126, 542 S.W.3d 856. Any petition for
writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is
properly addressed to the circuit court in which the prisoner
is held in custody, unless the petition is filed pursuant to
Act 1780. Dunahue v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 4, 534 S.W.3d
140. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-105 (Repl. 2016)
requires that the writ be directed to the person in whose
custody the petitioner is detained. Id. Jackson was
incarcerated within Jefferson County when he filed his habeas
petition, and the circuit court would have had jurisdiction
to enter the order under our statute at that time.
We need
not determine whether the order is clearly correct based on
the pleadings or whether the matter should nevertheless be
briefed because the circuit court may no longer grant the
relief that Jackson sought. A review of the record indicates
that at some point after Jackson filed the habeas petition
and before he filed his notice of appeal, Jackson was
transferred to an Arkansas Department of Correction facility
in Lincoln County. Because he is now incarcerated outside
Jefferson County, regardless of where Jackson was
incarcerated when the petition was filed or when the order
was entered, a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Jefferson
County Circuit Court could not now be returned. Williams
v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 198. Although a circuit court may
have subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the writ, a court
does not have personal jurisdiction to issue and make
returnable before itself a writ of habeas corpus to release a
petitioner held in another county. Id.
Appeal
dismissed; motions moot.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
On
April 4, 2019, Mr. Jackson filed a motion to dismiss his
appeal. In his motion, Mr. Jackson asserted that he had found
more evidence to support his claims and new case law to
support his arguments. Mr. Jackson requested this dismissal
so that he could present this additional evidence and new
case law to the circuit court. His motion for additional time
to file his brief was filed on March 5, 2019. In that motion,
he asserted that his prison work assignment conflicted with
the hours of the Varner Unit law library. Yet, inexplicably,
the majority has declined to grant Mr. Jackson's motion
to dismiss and has instead decided to take his appeal on the
merits.
First,
until the briefing is complete, all this court has pending
before it are Mr. Jackson's motion for an extension of
time to file his brief and his motion to dismiss his appeal.
Because he has not yet filed his brief, his appeal is not
perfected, and we do not have jurisdiction to decide his
appeal on the merits.
The
majority's dilatory disposition of Mr. Jackson's
motions and precipitous decision to decide his appeal on the
merits not only denies Mr. Jackson due process, it also
utterly defies logic. I cannot understand why the majority
chose to leap ahead and deny Mr. Jackson habeas relief when
he had apprised the court that he had additional claims that
he wished to consolidate at the circuit court level. It has
long been settled that when an appellant takes a case to an
appellate court, for a review of the judgment of a trial
court, the appellant has a right to dismiss the appeal and
submit to the judgment, if there is no prejudice to the
appellee. Bush v. Barksdale, 122 Ark. 262, 183 S.W.
171 (1916). The State has not filed a response to Mr.
Jackson's motion to dismiss.
Finally,
the utter futility in the majority's actions is further
proven by the fact that if Mr. Jackson has additional claims
and new evidence, he is allowed to file a new petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in ...