APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO.
40CV-18-140], HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE
Douthitt, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Chris R. Warthen, Asst Atty Gen.,
R. BAKER, Associate Justice
Appellant Ralph Douthitt appeals the circuit courts denial
of his petition seeking
"an extraordinary writ pursuant to the all writ act §
1651." The circuit court treated Douthitts petition as
a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied it.
appeals of postconviction proceedings, this court will not
reverse a circuit courts decision granting or denying
postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous.
Porter v. State, 2018 Ark. 22, 2018 WL 575417. A
finding 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 committed. Id. Because we find that
the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied
Douthitts petition for an extraordinary writ, we affirm.
was convicted of sixty-one felony counts of rape, incest, and
violation of a minor and was sentenced to serve an aggregate
term of 2,088 months imprisonment. We affirmed. Douthitt
v. State, 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996). In his
petition, Douthitt sought to set aside his convictions by
challenging the admissibility of evidence seized in an
allegedly illegal search. Douthitt raises the same claims and
arguments on appeal.
petition for relief was filed pursuant to "the all writs
act § 1651." This is a federal act that states in
pertinent part: "The Supreme Court and all courts
established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary
or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions...." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The actions of
state courts are outside the purview of federal authority
under the All Writs Act. Middlebrooks v. Thirteenth
Judicial Dist. Circuit Court, Union Cty., El Dorado,
Ark., 323 F.2d 485, 486 (8th Cir. 1963) (Since we have
no power to review and correct any order or judgment of the
state court, we cannot issue writs in potential control or
supervision as to such a power.). In sum, the All Writs Act
does not provide postconviction remedies to defendants like
Douthitt who are convicted by state courts for violations of
stated above, the circuit court treated Douthitts petition
as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied it.
Indeed, Douthitt filed his petition in the county where he is
incarcerated, named the director of the Arkansas Department
of Correction as the respondent, and asked that his sentence
be vacated. To the extent that Douthitt sought a writ of
habeas corpus, he did not state a cognizable claim. Under 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 or she is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. §
16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). 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). 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. Fields v. Hobbs,
2013 Ark. 416, 2013 WL 5775566. Douthitt did not allege
either a lack of jurisdiction or an illegal sentence. Rather,
as stated above, Douthitt challenged the admissibility of
evidence seized in an alleged illegal search. Issues that
concern factual questions on the admissibility of evidence
that could have been raised and addressed at trial are not
cognizable in habeas proceedings. Davis v. Kelley,
2019 Ark. 1, 564 S.W.3d 512.
Justice Gunner DeLay ...