Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mister v. Kelley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 6, 2019

Sharvelt MISTER, Appellant
v.
Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee

Page 411

         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.

          OPINION

         KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

          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

Page 412

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, 2018 WL 2251147.

          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. SeeDavis, 2019 Ark. 1, 564 S.W.3d 512. As such, this allegation does not fall within the purview of a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.