MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION, NO. 60CV-18-381]
RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice
Appellant Kenneth Ramirez, who is currently incarcerated at a
unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in
Jefferson County, Arkansas, filed a pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus in the Pulaski County Circuit
Court. Ramirez filed his petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections
16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016). The circuit court denied the
habeas petition, finding Ramirez failed to show that his
conviction was invalid on its face or that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction. Ramirez has lodged an appeal from the
denial of relief and has now filed a motion seeking an
extension of time to file the brief-in-chief. We need not
consider the merits of the motion because it is clear from
the record that Ramirez cannot prevail on appeal. We dismiss
the appeal, and Ramirezs motion is moot.
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. See Ark. Code Ann. § § 16-112-201 to -208
(Repl. 2016). Ramirez did not proceed under Act 1780.
Although a circuit court may have subject-matter jurisdiction
to issue the writ, a court does not have personal
jurisdiction to issue and make returnable before itself a
writ of habeas corpus to release a petitioner held in another
county. Noble v. State, 2018 Ark. 2, 534 S.W.3d 717;
Williams v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 198, 2017 WL 2378187.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-105 requires that the
writ be directed to the person in whose custody the
petitioner is detained. Although Ramirez was incarcerated in
Pulaski County when he filed the habeas petition, a writ of
habeas corpus issued by the Pulaski County Circuit Court
could not be returned there, as he is no longer within its
dismissed; motion moot.
Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
dissent. Ramirezs habeas corpus petition alleged an entirely
cognizable claim: that he was convicted of an offense that
did not exist at the time of the commission of the alleged
crime; therefore, the trial court did not have authority to
enter the judgment and commitment order. The circuit court
dismissed Ramirezs petition, and he appealed to this court.
However, after he filed his notice of appeal, Ramirez was
transferred to a detention facility in another part of the
state. He has asked for additional time to file his brief,
citing delays associated with the transfer as good cause.
Instead, the majority dismisses his appeal without ever
seeing his brief, concluding that his habeas claim is moot
because he is now incarcerated in a different county from the
one in which he originally filed his petition.
it is true that Ark. Code Ann. § § 16-112-101 to -123
contemplate that a habeas corpus petition should be directed
to the county in which the petitioner is presently held and
that Ramirez is no longer incarcerated in the county in which
his petition was filed, this case represents a classic
example of an issue that is capable of repetition yet evades
review— an exception to the mootness doctrine. See,
e.g., Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71, 238
S.W.3d 94 (2006). As I have noted,
It is frightening to think that if a citizen of this state is
wrongly imprisoned, the Arkansas Department of Correction
could avoid facing judicial intervention via the writ of
habeas corpus simply by moving the petitioner to another
county. This court should not condone, much less become an
active participant in such a shell game.
Noble v. State, 2018 Ark. 2, at 3, 534 S.W.3d 717,
718 (Hart, J., dissenting).
Instead of dismissing Ramirezs appeal as moot, we should
grant his request for an extension of time to file his brief,
and after briefing is complete, we should address the merits
of his ...