Rehearing Denied December 5, 2019
APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND MOTION TO
INCLUDE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM IN REPLY BRIEF [NO.
30CV-18-359], HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Leonard Noble, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Brad Newman, Asst Atty Gen., for
K. WOOD, Associate Justice.
Leonard Noble appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Noble raises two
grounds for reversal— that the circuit court erred in
declining to issue the writ based on the States failure to
afford Noble a speedy trial and by not holding an evidentiary
hearing on his petition. Because Noble did not state a ground
for the writ, we affirm the circuit courts order, and find
his subsequent motion seeking leave to file a supplemental
addendum in his reply brief is moot.
1999, a Sebastian County Circuit Court jury found Noble
guilty of residential burglary and rape and sentenced him as
a habitual offender to an aggregate sentence of 900 months
imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Noble v. State, CR-00-587 (Ark.App. Sept. 19, 2001)
(unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 00-587). Noble filed
the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the county where he
is currently incarcerated
of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is
invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks
jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015
Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 503. Jurisdiction is the power of the
court to hear and determine the subject matter in
controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255
S.W.3d 466 (2007). When the trial court has personal
jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction
over the subject matter, the court has authority to render
the judgment. Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479, 769
S.W.2d 3 (1989).
our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege
his 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 is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. §
16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016).
circuit courts decision on a petition for writ of habeas
corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous.
Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A
decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is
evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing
the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. The
circuit court dismissed Nobles habeas petition on its
merits; that is, it held that Noble had not been denied a
speedy trial. The issue at hand, however, is whether Noble
stated a ground for issuance of the writ. As he did not do
so, the habeas petition was subject to dismissal by the
circuit court, and this court will affirm the circuit courts
decision when it reached the right result even if a wrong
reason may have been stated. See Marshall v.
State, 2017 Ark. 208, at 5, 521 S.W.3d 456, 459.
court has held that speedy-trial issues are not cognizable in
habeas proceedings. Williams v. Kelley, 2017 Ark.
200, at 4, 521 S.W.3d 104, 107. Allegations of speedy-trial
violations are assertions of trial error that do not
implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the
jurisdiction of the trial court. Id. If there were
errors at trial, those issues could, and should, have been
raised at trial and on the record on direct appeal and are
thus not within the purview of the remedy because the writ of