EDWARD E. LOVING APPELLANT
WILLIAM STRAUGHN, WARDEN, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT [NO. 40CV-19-30] HONORABLE JODI RAINES
E. Loving, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice
Edward E. Loving appeals from the denial and dismissal of his
pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, a remedy allowed
pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl.
2016). Because Loving stated no ground on which the writ
could issue under Arkansas law, we affirm the circuit
2007, Loving entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder
and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 600 months'
imprisonment. He filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus
in the county where he is incarcerated in 2019. Gardner
v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 300 (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
of 2001 seeking scientific testing of evidence.); see
also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 (Repl. 2016)
(providing that petitions under Act 1780 are brought in the
court in which the petitioner's convictions were
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. Stephenson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 143,
544 S.W.3d 44. 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). Unless the petitioner can show
that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the
commitment order was invalid on its face, there is no basis
for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue.
Proctor v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 382, 562 S.W.3d 837.
circuit court's 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.
petition consisted of approximately one hundred pages of
conclusory statements pertaining to Loving's
interpretation of Arkansas law and the scope of an action for
the writ of habeas corpus. He argues on appeal that the
circuit court erred when it failed to issue the writ on the
following grounds: (1) he is a "natural person" and
first-degree murder is "special law/color of law for
corporations and not to be used against natural persons"
under the Arkansas Constitution of 1874, and the circuit
court was wrong to state that he had referred to himself as
an "incorporated being"; (2) there was never a
lawful warrant, felony information or indictment, or judgment
entered against him; (3) he correctly named the warden of the
prison unit where he was incarcerated as the respondent to
the habeas action rather than the director of the Arkansas
Department of Correction; (4) he was punished without a trial
and the unlawful conviction was a "corruption of blood
and forfeiture" of his estate; (5) his "copyrighted
property, i.e. EDWARD EUGENE LOVING" was taken,
appropriated, and damaged for public use without just
the assertions in the petition for writ of habeas corpus,
Loving did not offer any factual substantiation or cogent
argument in his brief in support of the claims to establish
that the judgment entered against him in 2007 for
first-degree murder was facially illegal or that the trial
court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. His petition
consisted of blanket assertions that failed entirely to show
that there was a ground for the writ. Claims for habeas
relief that are entirely conclusory in nature do not
demonstrate a basis for the writ to issue. Jones v.
State, 2019 Ark. 12, 565 S.W.3d 100. Accordingly, the
circuit court's decision that the habeas petition was
meritless was not clearly erroneous.