Boyle v. State, 2010 Ark. 98 (Ark. 2/25/2010)

• Decision Date: 25 February 2010
• Docket Number: 08-1107.
• Citation: 2010 Ark. 98
• Parties: Shannon David BOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1

2010 Ark. 98

Shannon David BOYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

08-1107.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2010.

Pro Se Appeal Fro M Circuit Court of Lin Coln County, CV 2008-46, Hon. Robert H. Wyatt, Jr., Judge.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

In 2001, appellant Shannon David Boyle was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County of aggravated robbery and theft of property. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of ninety years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Boyle v. State, CACR 01-1146 (Ark. App. Oct. 9, 2002) (unpublished).

In 2008, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006) in the county in which he was incarcerated, contending that he was entitled to release from imprisonment with respect to the judgment of conviction in those cases.¹ The court denied the petition, and appellant brings this appeal. We find no error and affirm the order.

The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for w rit of habeas corpus to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for a writ to issue. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W .3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W .3d at 798-99.

Appellant did not contend in his petition that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was facially invalid. Instead, he asserted that the jury should not have been allowed to consider the custodial statement of Joseph Franks; that the prosecution failed to provide the defense with certain pertinent information; and that the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury concerning his eligibility for parole, his prior convictions, and the range of sentencing. In a motion to amend the habeas petition, appellant added the claim that he was actually innocent of the offenses and reiterated some of the contentions in the petition. None of the issues raised was cognizable as a ground for a writ of habeas corpus because none called into question the jurisdiction of the trial court or the facial validityof the commitment. See Pineda v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 471 (per curiam).

A habeas corpus proceeding does...