Hayes v. Kelley
| Citation | 2020 Ark. 79 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-18-916,CV-18-916 |
| Parties | STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HAYES APPELLANT v. WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME, TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, AND TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM AND SUBSTITUTED BRIEF
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS MOOT.
Steven Christopher Hayes appeals from an order denying his habeas-corpus petition filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Hayes contends the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea before an ordered mental evaluation was filed. We hold that the circuit court retained jurisdiction while the mental evaluation was pending; therefore, Hayes did not state a ground for the writ. We affirm and find that his pro se motions for extension of time to file a reply brief, to supplement the record, to supplement the addendum, and to file a substitute brief-in-chief are moot.
At the time of the trial court proceedings on his criminal charges, Hayes requested a mental evaluation pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-205. (Supp. 2013). The circuit court granted the request on November 10, 2014. However, on December 10, 2014, Hayes withdrew the request and pled guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual assault. He was sentenced to 336 months of imprisonment on each count. On December 11, 2014, the forensic evaluation was submitted to the court with a finding that Hayes was competent and fit to proceed. The sentencing order was filed December 16, 2014.
In April 2018, Hayes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was denied by a written order. Hayes's sole argument1 on appeal is that once the circuit court ordered a mental evaluation in his criminal proceedings, the court lacked the "authority or jurisdiction" to further proceed with his case until it received the examination report.
A decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. 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. 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. Id. Jurisdictionis 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). A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Russell v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 278, 585 S.W.3d 658.
If a petitioner for habeas relief fails to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action, the petitioner fails to meet his or her burden of demonstrating a basis for the writ to issue. McArthur, supra. A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Johnson v. State, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Claims of error by the circuit court that accepted a guilty plea are not within the purview of the remedy because the writ will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred in a guilty-plea proceeding. Id.; Barber v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 214, at 4-5. Unless a habeas petitioner can demonstrate that a sentence is illegal on the face of the commitment order, there is no showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence. See Edwards v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 254, 526 S.W.3d 825.
Hayes's claim that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction is one that falls within the scope of habeas. However, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter jurisdiction of the criminal matter, and Hayes's claim that the circuit court was divested of jurisdiction due to the lack of a forensic report at the time of the proceeding fails. See Mauppin v. State, 309 Ark. 235, 244, 831 S.W.2d 104, 108 (1992) (). An error in a plea proceeding is not a jurisdictional defect. Johnson v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 230,577 S.W.3d 710; Johnson, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Hayes's argument does not demonstrate that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to continue to preside over his case. Hayes's argument is instead a claim of trial error that does not affect the circuit court's jurisdiction.2 See Mitchell, 2018 Ark. 331.
Additionally, Hayes withdrew his motion for a mental evaluation. He did all of this with assistance of counsel. The circuit court took measures to ensure that Hayes was able to understand the proceedings prior to accepting Hayes's guilty plea. Hayes's acceptance of a guilty plea is therefore not within the purview of the habeas remedy because the writ will not be issued for a defendant to reconsider the decision to plead guilty. Crockett v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 26. Inasmuch as Hayes failed to state a basis on which the writ could issue, the circuit court hearing his habeas petition did not err by denying relief.
Affirmed; motions moot.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, dissenting. I dissent to this court deciding this case on the merits without first deciding the motions that Mr. Hayes has filed. Dueprocess requires that we dispose of all motions prior to taking this case under submission. See Mister v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 187, 575 S.W.3d 410 (Hart, J., dissenting).
It is instructive to note the substance of Mr. Hayes's motions. His motion to supplement the record, filed on October 11, 2019, is a motion to include a certified transcript of his plea hearing.3 Mr. Hayes's motion to file a substituted brief and addendum, filed on November 13, 2019, is grounded in his uncontested assertion that he suffers from mental illness and recently changed medication that enables him to better defend himself in his brief. In my view, Mr. Hayes has demonstrated compelling good cause to grant his motion.
The majority also errs in applying its unlawfully narrowed conception of the cognizable grounds for habeas corpus. The majority again asserts that the great writ can only issue when "when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause." However, in Mr. Hayes's case, his petition actually asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. Mr. Hayes is correct.
On November 10, 2014, the Saline County Circuit Court entered an order for a criminal responsibility examination. The order recited that Mr. Hayes had properly filed notice of his intent to "rely on the defense of mental disease or defect." Prior to its repeal and replacement by Act 472 of 2017, a request by a criminal defendant for a mentalevaluation was governed by Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-305. It stated in pertinent part:
5-2-305. Mental health examination of defendant.
(a)(1) Subject to the provisions of §§ 5-2-304 and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State
...of the court-ordered mental evaluation or to otherwise challenge his competency to plead guilty. Id. ; see also Hayes v. Kelley , 2020 Ark. 79, 2020 WL 830048 (rejecting Hayes's argument that trial court did not have jurisdiction to accept plea before receipt of the mental evaluation). In a......
-
Hayes v. State
...circuit court lacked jurisdiction for accepting his guilty plea before his mental evaluation was filed. We affirmed the denial. Hayes v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 79. Hayes also filed three petitions for writ of error coram nobis alleging that (1) he was insane at the plea hearing, (2) his guilty p......