Douthitt v. Kelley
| Decision Date | 19 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-19-214,CV-19-214 |
| Citation | 2019 Ark. 404,590 S.W.3d 734 |
| Parties | Ralph DOUTHITT, Appellant v. Wendy KELLEY, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ralph Douthitt, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Chris R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Ralph Douthitt appeals the circuit court's denial of his petition seeking "an extraordinary writ pursuant to the all writ act § 1651." The circuit court treated Douthitt's petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied it.
In appeals of postconviction proceedings, this court will not reverse a circuit court's decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous. Porter v. State , 2018 Ark. 22, 2018 WL 575417. A finding 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 committed. Id. Because we find that the circuit court did not clearly err when it denied Douthitt's petition for an extraordinary writ, we affirm.
Douthitt was convicted of sixty-one felony counts of rape, incest, and violation of a minor and was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of 2,088 months' imprisonment. We affirmed. Douthitt v. State , 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996). In his petition, Douthitt sought to set aside his convictions by challenging the admissibility of evidence seized in an allegedly illegal search. Douthitt raises the same claims and arguments on appeal.
Douthitt's petition for relief was filed pursuant to "the all writs act § 1651." This is a federal act that states in pertinent part: "The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions...." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The actions of state courts are outside the purview of federal authority under the All Writs Act. Middlebrooks v. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Circuit Court, Union Cty., El Dorado, Ark. , 323 F.2d 485, 486 (8th Cir. 1963) (). In sum, the All Writs Act does not provide postconviction remedies to defendants like Douthitt who are convicted by state courts for violations of state laws.
As stated above, the circuit court treated Douthitt's petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied it. Indeed, Douthitt filed his petition in the county where he is incarcerated, named the director of the Arkansas Department of Correction as the respondent, and asked that his sentence be vacated. To the extent that Douthitt sought a writ of habeas corpus, he did not state a cognizable claim. 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 or she is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris , 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Fields v. Hobbs , 2013 Ark. 416, 2013 WL 5775566. Douthitt did not allege either a lack of jurisdiction or an illegal sentence. Rather, as stated above, Douthitt challenged the admissibility of evidence seized in an alleged illegal search. Issues that concern factual questions on the admissibility of evidence that could have been raised and addressed at trial are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Davis v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 1, 564 S.W.3d 512.
Affirmed.
Special Justice Gunner DeLay joins in this opinion.
Kemp, C.J., not participating.
I agree that Mr. Douthitt clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolfe v. Payne
...admissibility of evidence that could have been raised and addressed at trial are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Douthitt v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 404, 590 S.W.3d 734. Furthermore, an illegal arrest, in itself, does not void a subsequent conviction. Lewis v. Payne , 2020 Ark. 345 (citing......
-
Rea v. Kelley
...admissibility of evidence that could have been raised and addressed at trial are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Douthitt v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 404, 590 S.W.3d 734. Any challenge Rea desired to raise as to the legality of his arrest or errors in his trial could and should have been mad......
-
Walker v. Kelley
...circuit court's decision granting or denying postconviction relief will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Douthitt v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 404, 590 S.W.3d 734. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite an......