PRO SE
APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME [NO. 40CV-18-108], HONORABLE JODI
RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE.
Sharvelt Mister, pro se appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
KARENR. BAKER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.s
Appellant
Sharvelt Mister filed in the circuit court of the county
where he is incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas
corpus.[1] The circuit court "denied and
dismissed" the petition for habeas relief, after which
Mister lodged this appeal.[2] On appeal, Mister argues that the
"magistrate 'never' issued a[n] [arrest] warrant
for Petitioner"; the criminal information was filed
without supporting documentation; and because no warrant was
issued, introduction of any evidence was illegal
"according to the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine." Because the circuit court did not clearly err
when it denied Mister's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, we affirm.
A writ
of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is
invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction
over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465,
477 S.W.3d 503. Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ
who does not allege his or her actual innocence and proceed
under Act 1780 of 2001 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 or she is being
illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1)
(Repl. 2006); Garrison v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 8, 534
S.W.3d 136. A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an
opportunity to retry his or her case, and it is not a
substitute for direct appeal or for seeking postconviction
relief. Davis v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 1, 564 S.W.3d
512. Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its
face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas
corpus should issue. Collier v. Kelley, 2018 Ark.
170.
Mister
did not proceed under Act 1780 and essentially raises the
same claims on appeal as he did below.[3] None of
Mister's claims are cognizable in a habeas proceeding,
and he failed to establish that the writ should issue.
As to
the validity of Mister's arrest, a flaw in the arrest of
a convicted defendant does not constitute a jurisdictional
defect. We have made clear that the circuit court's
jurisdiction to try the accused does not depend on the
validity of the arrest. Singleton v. State, 256 Ark.
756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). Because circuit courts have
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases
involving violations of criminal statutes, Mister was
properly tried in a court of competent jurisdiction. See
Grimes v. State, 2018 Ark. 407, 562 S.W.3d 215.
Claims
of a defective information that raise a jurisdictional issue,
such as a claim of an illegal sentence, are cognizable in
habeas proceedings; however, general defective-information
allegations are not. Anderson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark.
222, 549 S.W.3d 913. Mister's contention that the
prosecutor filed the criminal information without any
supporting documents is a mere assertion of trial error. Such
assertions of trial error and due-process violations do not
implicate the facial validity of a trial court's judgment
or jurisdiction. Id.
With
regard to the unreasonable-search-and-seizure claim, that
claim is also not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Any
allegation of a violation of his right to be free from an
unreasonable search and seizure is a claim of a
constitutional violation and trial error that does not
implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the
jurisdiction of the trial court. The issue concerns factual
questions on the admissibility of evidence that could have
been raised at trial and addressed there. See Davis,
2019 Ark. 1, 564 S.W.3d 512. As such, this allegation does
not fall within the purview of a habeas proceeding. Because
Mister fails to allege a basis for the circuit court to grant
the writ, he demonstrates no error in the dismissal of his
petition.
Affirmed;
motion moot.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
Until
the briefing is complete, all this court has pending before
it is Mr. Mister's motion for an extension of time to
file his brief. That motion was filed on January 25, 2019.
Because this court has not yet given him an extension of time
to file his brief, Mr. Mister's appeal is not perfected,
and we do not have jurisdiction to decide his appeal on the
merits.
Without
conceding that this court lacks jurisdiction to dispose of
this case on the merits, I note further that this is yet
another case in which this court has substantially narrowed
the circumstances in which relief under our state habeas
corpus statute may be had. This stance continues to perplex
in light of the Supreme Court of the United States'
rejection of this limit on habeas corpus when it reversed
Jackson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. ...