Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (Ark. 2/25/2010)

• Decision Date: 25 February 2010
• Docket Number: 08-735.
• Citation: 2010 Ark. 97
• Parties: Ben GRIMES, Jr. Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 1

2010 Ark. 97

Ben GRIMES, Jr. Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

08-735.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2010.

Pro Se Appeal From Circuit Court of Lincoln County, CV 2008-2, Hon. Robert H. Wyatt, Jr., Judge.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

In 1987, appellant Ben Grimes, Jr., was found guilty of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Grimes v. State, 295 Ark. 426, 748 S.W.2d 657 (1988).

In 2008, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006) and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-201 to -208 (2006) in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County where he was incarcerated. In the petition, appellant contended that he was entitled to release from imprisonment because he was actually innocent of the offense for which he was imprisoned. He also argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on the ground that he was denied due process of law guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The court denied the petition, and appellant brings this appeal. We find no error and affirm the order.

The court declined to grant relief under Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-201 to -208 (2006) because claims of actual innocence pursuant to the statute must be brought in the trial court where the judgment of conviction was entered. Appellant argues on appeal that the court was obligated to hold a hearing on the issue of whether the petition could be heard in the court in the county where he was incarcerated. There is no merit to the argument because the language in the statute is plain that the petition is to be filed in the trial court, and jurisdiction can be determined from the pleadings without an evidentiary hearing. See Jensen v. State, 328 Ark. 349, 944 S.W.2d 820 (1997); see also McKinney v. City of El Dorado, 308 Ark. 284, 824 S.W.2d 826 (1992). The court did not err in declining to act on appellant's claims pursuant to sections 16-112-201 to -208.

With respect to issues raised pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (2006), the petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 221, 226 S.W.3d 797, 799 (2006) (per curiam). The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the com mitment was invalid on its face; otherw ise, there is no basis for a writ to issue. Id.

Appellant asserted in his petition that he was not afforded due process of law on the grounds that there was no valid arrest warrant issued, that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with his arrest, and that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. Appellant reiterates the allegations on appeal. None of the issues raised, however, were cognizable as a ground for a writ of habeas corpus because none called into question the jurisdiction of the trial court or the facial validity of the commitment. See Pineda v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 471 (per curiam ).

A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. White v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 446 (per curiam). It is likewise not...