Dickinson v. Norris
| Decision Date | 06 October 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-791,09-791 |
| Citation | 2011 Ark. 413 |
| Parties | JOHN PATRICK DICKINSON APPELLANT v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appellant John Patrick Dickinson appeals from an order of the Lincoln County Circuit Court denying his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. For reversal, appellant makes three allegations of error concerning claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and being improperly charged by information instead of indictment. Because appellant failed to raise these arguments to the circuit court, we affirm.
Appellant was convicted by a Craighead County jury of capital murder and attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole and a term of twenty years' imprisonment to run concurrently. We affirmed appellant's convictions on direct appeal. Dickinson v. State, 367 Ark. 102, 238 S.W.3d 125 (2006).
Appellant filed for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2005), and, in 2007, the circuit court denied his petition. We later declined his requests to pursue an appeal of the circuit court's denial of his petition because he lodgedthe record belatedly. Dickinson v. State, CR 08-1090 (Ark. Feb. 12, 2009) (unpublished per curiam); Dickinson v. State, CR 08-1090 (Ark. Nov. 20, 2008) (unpublished per curiam).
Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County where he was incarcerated. In his petition, appellant asserted that the circuit court lost subject-matter jurisdiction before sentencing when it allegedly failed to follow the United States Constitution and Arkansas Constitution. Appellant further alleged three grounds for issuance of the writ: (1) insufficient evidence of his guilt due to the lack of physical evidence or conclusive scientific evidence connecting him to the crime scene; (2) the police's seizure of his gun allegedly violating his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 2, section 15 of the Arkansas Constitution; (3) the State's method of charging him by felony information instead of indictment. Without a hearing, the court entered an order denying his petition and ruled that his claims of insufficiency of the evidence and Fourth Amendment violations were not cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus and that charging by a felony information was a valid method of bringing a defendant to trial. From that order, appellant now brings his appeal.
On appeal, appellant raises similar arguments to those made in his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge either the sufficiency or the reliability of the evidence presented at trial, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of his alleged illegal seizure, and that he was improperly charged by felony information instead of indictment as required by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The burden is on the appellant in a petition for 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. Daniels v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 192 (per curiam); Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, an appellant 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 illegally detained. Young, 365 Ark. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798-99; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006).
Here, we are precluded from reaching the merits of appellant's arguments. Appellant's first two arguments, which include insufficiency of the evidence at trial and possible Fourth Amendment violations, fail because this court has held that trial irregularities and ineffective assistance of counsel issues are not grounds for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 687, 840 S.W.2d 166, 167 (1992).
Further, we turn to appellant's assertion that the Fifth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolefree v. State
...instrument are not jurisdictional and must be raised prior to trial. Smith v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 400 (per curiam); Dickinson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 413 (per curiam); Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421, 938 S.W.2d 843 (1997) (per curiam). When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the plea is his or h......
-
Culbertson v. State
...issue, he could not prevail on appeal of the order denying his petition. Douthitt v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 416 (per curiam); Dickinson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 413 (per curiam).Appeal dismissed; motion moot.1 As of the date of this opinion, appellant remains incarcerated at the prison facility in Le......
-
Girley v. Hobbs
...curiam). Appellant could not, therefore, prevail on appeal of the order denying his petition. Douthitt, 2011 Ark. 416; Dickinson v. State, 2011 Ark. 413 (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. James Girley, pro se appellant. No response. 1. The judgment entered erroneously reflected a ......
-
Roberson v. State
...challenges to the sufficiency of the charging instrument are not jurisdictional and must be raised prior to trial. Dickinson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 413 (per curiam); Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421, 938 S.W.2d 843 (1997) (per curiam). A prosecuting attorney is not required to receive judicial a......