Darrough v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11-1185,11-1185 |
| Citation | 2013 Ark. 28 |
| Parties | KEDRICK T. DARROUGH APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
2013 Ark. 28
KEDRICK T. DARROUGH APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
No. 11-1185
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013
Appellant Kedrick T. Darrough is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. His incarceration stems, in part, from a judgment that was affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals and that imposed an aggregate sentence of 1080 months' imprisonment for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. See Darrough v. State, CACR 07-223 (Ark. App. Oct. 27, 2007) (unpublished). In the circuit court of the county where he was, and continues to be, imprisoned, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged that judgment. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant lodged this appeal of the order.
After the briefs were filed in this case, appellant filed a motion to supplement the addendum and tendered the material with which he wished to supplement his addendum. We deny the motion to supplement the addendum because the materials at issue were not included in the record before the circuit court. This court has long and consistently held that it cannot, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside of the
Page 2
record below. Lowe v. State, 2012 Ark. 185, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam); McLeod v. Mabry, 206 Ark. 618, 177 S.W.2d 46 (1944).
Turning to the merits of the appeal, we note that a circuit court's denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court's findings are clearly erroneous. McArty v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 257 (per curiam). In this case, we agree with the circuit court's determination that appellant's conclusory allegations were not sufficient to merit relief, and the court's findings to support denial of the writ were not clearly erroneous.
The burden is on the petitioner in proceedings for a writ 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 finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. State
...evidence of probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. Ark.Code Ann. § 16–112–103(a)(1) (Repl.2006); Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28, 2013 WL 409690 (per curiam). A circuit court's denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court's findings are clearly erroneous. ......
-
King v. State, CR12-1090
...it cannot, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside the record below. Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (per curiam); Lowe v. State, 2012 Ark. 185, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam);McLeod v. Mabry, ......
-
Smith v. Hobbs
...exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside of the record below. See, e.g., Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28, 2013 WL 409690 per curiam). Because it is clear from the record that Smith could not prevail if the appeal were permitted to go forward, we......
-
Murphy v. State
...additionally make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. Darrough v. State, 2013Ark. 28 (per curiam); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006). Proceedings for the writ are not intended to require an extensive review of the......