Darrough v. Kelley, 110917 ARSC, CV-17-34
|Opinion Judge:||SHAWN A. WOMACK, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.|
|Party Name:||KEDRICK TREVON DARROUGH APPELLANT v. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE|
|Attorney:||Kedrick Trevon Darrough, Sr., pro se appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.|
|Case Date:||November 09, 2017|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Arkansas|
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CV-16-264], HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE
Kedrick Trevon Darrough, Sr., pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.
Kedrick Trevon Darrough appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006) in which he alleged that his sentence was illegally enhanced pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-408 (Supp. 2003). On appeal, Darrough argues that the circuit court erred by failing to grant his motion for default judgment, by not reducing his sentence because he was not subject to an enhancement with an out-of-state conviction pursuant to section 5-64-408, and by not holding an evidentiary hearing. The circuit court's denial of habeas relief was not clearly erroneous and is affirmed.
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. 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 is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006). A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his or her case, and it is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief. See Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006). A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, at 5, 434 S.W.3d 364, 367. 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. Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP