Collier v. Kelley

• Decision Date: 20 February 2020
• Docket Number: No. CV-19-690,CV-19-690
• Citation: 594 S.W.3d 50,2020 Ark. 77
• Parties: Kelvin COLLIER, Appellant v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2020 Ark. 77

594 S.W.3d 50

Kelvin COLLIER, Appellant

v.Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee

No. CV-19-690

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: February 20, 2020

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Kelvin Collier appeals from the denial and dismissal of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Collier contends that the circuit court erred by finding his convictions were not invalid on the face of the judgments. Collier failed to state a basis for issuance of the writ, and we thereby affirm the decision of the circuit court.

Collier pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, residential burglary, and theft of property in Jefferson County for which he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 420 months’ imprisonment as reflected by a judgment and commitment order file-marked on May 8, 1997.¹

A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Anderson v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 6, 564 S.W.3d 516. 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.

A petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus who does not allege his or her 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.² McArthur v. State , 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. A writ 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. This court views an issue of a void or illegal sentence as being an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. Johnson v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 230, 577 S.W.3d 710. A sentence is void or illegal when the trial court lacks the authority to impose it. Id. A trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Russell v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 278, 585 S.W.3d. 658. When a 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).

A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Johnson v. State , 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Claims of error by the trial court that accepted a guilty plea are not within the purview of the remedy because the writ will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred in a guilty-plea proceeding. Id. Unless a habeas petitioner can demonstrate that a sentence is illegal on the face of the judgment and commitment order, there is no showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose it. Edwards v. Kelley , 2017 Ark. 254, 526 S.W.3d 825.

On appeal, Collier argues, as he did below, that the judgments in three counties––Jefferson County in case numbers CR-96-921 and CR-96-958, Bradley County in case number CR-95-4, and Desha County in case number CR-94-32––reflected the incorrect legal name, which is a "fatal misnomer," making the convictions facially invalid.³ Regarding the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction, Collier further argues that he was entitled to habeas relief because the State knowingly used an alias in order to "illegally, unconstitutionally, and unprecidently (sic) obtain convictions for crimes the Appellant did not commit." In the same vein, Collier claims that the circuit court erred by failing to find that he raised a jurisdictional challenge because the circuit court misapplied Sanders v. Straughn , 2014 Ark. 312, 439 S.W.3d 1 (per curiam), as convictions under an alias do render the conviction illegal. The circuit court did not err in declining to issue the writ.⁴

Collier contends that his name at birth was Kelvin John Collier Clay, and after his mother left him, he had used the name Kelvin Collier and that "it was easy for those in authority to convince him his last name was Collier because, in their official capacities, they were reinforcing an untruth forced upon him his whole life." Collier further contends that because the criminal information contained an error in his name, the error is a jurisdictional issue and that cases such as Sanders , 2014 Ark. 312, 439 S.W.3d 1, "d[o] not ban all challenges to the sufficiency of the charging information, or any other claim made by the Appellant, as the [c]ircuit [c]court claimed." Collier’s claims are without merit.

A criminal information is sufficient if it names the defendant, the offense charged, the statute under which the charge was made, the court and county where the alleged offense was committed, and if it sets forth the principal language of the statute and the asserted facts constituting the offense. Beard v. State , 269 Ark. 16, 598 S.W.2d 72 (1980). Even if the criminal informations in Collier’s cases were flawed, the time to challenge the allegedly flawed informations would have been prior to trial or a guilty plea—bearing in mind that Collier admitted he went by the names "Kelvin Collier" or "Kelvin John Collier Clay." See Prince v. State , 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46 (1991). Collier’s challenge to the "misnomer" on the judgment and commitment orders boils down to nothing more than an allegation of trial error and is not the type of defect that implicates the facial validity of a trial court’s judgment or jurisdiction, and such an allegation is therefore not cognizable in a proceeding for the writ. Mister v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 187, 575 S.W.3d 410.

To the extent Collier makes an allegation of actual innocence, we have held that claims of actual innocence are effectively challenges to the sufficiency of...