Cook v. Hobbs
| Decision Date | 22 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-984,10-984 |
| Citation | 2011 Ark. 382 |
| Parties | GREGORY A. COOK APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
This is a pro so appeal from an order of the Jefferson County Circuit Court denying a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant Gregory A. Cook. We affirm.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty on June 5, 1997, to a charge of capital murder and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole. He filed the habeas petition on May 21, 2010, in the circuit court in the county where he was incarcerated. Therein, appellant alleged (1) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the charging instrument was insufficient and because the warrant issued for his arrest was invalid, as it was not signed by a judicial officer; (2) that his guilty-plea hearing violated certain rules of criminal procedure, but, because he had been denied access to a copy of the hearing transcript, he could not specifically outline the rule violations or prove to the court that he is actually innocent; and (3) that his sentence is illegal because the felony information and arrest warrant were invalid.
The circuit court denied appellant's petition, finding that appellant's allegations failed to demonstrate that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction or that his commitment order was invalidon its face. The circuit court further found that appellant's claim that he has been denied a transcript of his plea hearing was not one cognizable in a habeas proceeding. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant's allegations of error are the same as those raised below. We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous. Clarks v. State, 2011 Ark. 296 (per curiam). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there was 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. Flores v. State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).
Appellant's first and third arguments are intertwined, as they both center on his claims that the felony information filed against him and the warrant issued for his arrest were invalid. According to appellant, these deficiencies deprived the trial court of jurisdiction and rendered his sentence illegal. Appellant's arguments are without merit.
A petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus only where he demonstrates that the commitment order is invalid on its face or that the convicting court lacked jurisdiction. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101 to-123 (Repl. 2006); Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). To do so, he must 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); Friend, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123.
First, we consider appellant's contention that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence him, or that his sentence is illegal, because of a procedural defect withregard to the charging instrument. This court has held that claims such as those raised by appellant are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990). We have consistently held that the proper time to object to the form or sufficiency of an indictment or information is prior to trial. Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 88 (per curiam) (citing Prince v. State, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46 (1991)); see also England v. State, 234 Ark. 421, 352 S.W.2d 582 (1962). We have declined to review the sufficiency of an information on appeal when there was no proper objection in the court below. Prince, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W. 2d 46. If we considered the issue to be jurisdictional, we could overlook the failure to object and reverse the conviction, if necessary, on our own motion. Davis, 2011 Ark. 88 (citing Jones v. State, 297 Ark. 485, 763 S.W.2d 81 (1989)). A deficiency within a felony information does not render a judgment invalid on its face. See Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam).
Likewise, appellant's contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that his sentence is illegal because a judicial officer did not sign his arrest warrant is not an issue cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The validity of an arrest warrant is not an issue that is cognizable as a ground for a writ of habeas corpus because it does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moten v. State
...146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). We have repeatedly held that an illegal arrest, standing alone, does not vitiate a valid conviction. Cook v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 382 (per curiam) (citing Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994)). Thus, any failure by counsel to challenge the validity of the......
-
Roberson v. State
...corpus because it does not call into question the jurisdiction of the court or the facial validity of the commitment. Cook v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 382 (per curiam); Edwards v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 336; Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (per curiam). This court has explained that a court's jurisdiction ......
-
Smith v. Hobbs
...that such challenges must be advanced at the time of trial or on the record on direct appeal. Russell, 2011 Ark. 456; Cook v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 382 (per curiam). Challenges to the sufficiency of the charging instrument are not jurisdictional challenges and must be raised before trial. Dickin......
-
Slocum v. State
...352 S.W.2d 582 (1962). A deficiency within a felony information does not render a judgment invalid on its face. See Cook v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 382, 2011 WL 4396968 (per curiam); Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287, 2010 WL 2210926 (per ...