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.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Jacob H. Jones, Asst Atty Gen.,
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. The circuit court "denied and
dismissed" the petition for habeas relief, after which
Mister lodged this appeal. 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 Misters
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we affirm.
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, 2018 WL 2251147.
did not proceed under Act 1780 and essentially raises the
same claims on appeal as he did below. None of Misters
claims are cognizable in a habeas proceeding, and he failed
to establish that the writ should issue.
the validity of Misters arrest, a flaw in the arrest of a
convicted defendant does not constitute a jurisdictional
defect. We have made clear that the circuit courts
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
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. Misters 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 courts judgment or
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 ...