Jefferson v. Payne
| Decision Date | 20 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-21-178,CV-21-178 |
| Citation | 2022 Ark. 4,637 S.W.3d 264 |
| Parties | Melvin JEFFERSON, Appellant v. Dexter PAYNE, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Melvin Jefferson, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Melvin Jefferson appeals the denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that he filed in the county where he is incarcerated. Jefferson seeks to invalidate the application of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(1) (Supp. 2001) to his parole status, which rendered him ineligible for parole.1 As there are no grounds stated in either the petition filed in the circuit court or in his appellate arguments on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued, we affirm.
In 2004, Jefferson pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree domestic battery of his wife and two counts of second-degree domestic battery of his two children. Jefferson was sentenced to 300 months’––or twenty-five years’––imprisonment for first-degree domestic battery and was sentenced to 240 months’––or twenty years’––imprisonment for the two counts of second-degree domestic battery. The sentences were imposed to run concurrently. After sentencing, Jefferson was informed by the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) that he must serve 100 percent of his sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(1).
In 2009, Jefferson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and appealed its denial by the circuit court, arguing on appeal that he should not have been sentenced as a habitual offender because that designation was not a part of the plea agreement, and the judgment did not reflect that he had been sentenced as a habitual offender. Jefferson v. State , 2010 Ark. 202, 2010 WL 1726819 (per curiam). After reviewing the record, we denied relief, concluding that Jefferson was made aware of, and agreed to, being sentenced as a habitual offender, and that if Jefferson did not get the sentence that he had agreed to in the plea negotiations, he could have filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010). Id.
Jefferson then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court, which was also denied. In the petition filed in the trial court and in his arguments on appeal, Jefferson sought a modification of his parole status. Jefferson v. State , 2019 Ark. 408, 591 S.W.3d 310. We affirmed the denial on appeal, finding that Jefferson had failed to state a claim for coram nobis relief. Id . On February 12, 2021, Jefferson filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). The circuit court denied the petition and Jefferson filed a timely appeal.
A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. 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 and commitment order is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Foreman v. State , 2019 Ark. 108, 571 S.W.3d 484. 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). When the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment. Johnson v. State , 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989).
A petitioner who files a writ and does not allege his or her actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016), 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. Fields v. Hobbs , 2013 Ark. 416, 2013 WL 5775566 ; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1). Proceedings for the writ are not intended to require an extensive review of the record of the trial proceedings, and the circuit court's inquiry into the validity of the judgment is limited to the face of the commitment order. McArthur v. State , 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Fields , 2013 Ark. 416.
In the habeas petition filed in the circuit court, Jefferson alleged that the trial court failed to adhere to Rule 24.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2004), that the habitual-offender charge reflected in the information did not contain a contra pacem clause, that the plea agreement did not reference Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(1), and that the ADC has refused to consider his parole eligibility after he reached the age of fifty-five pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-615(h). However, Jefferson has abandoned his first two claims on appeal and contends instead that by denying him parole, the ADC has illegally enhanced his sentence. Jefferson points out in his appellate argument that allegations of an illegal sentence can be raised for the first time on appeal. Be that as it may, Jefferson is mistaken because the judgment reflects a facially legal sentence.
A sentence is void or illegal when the trial court lacks authority to impose it. McArty v. State , 2020 Ark. 68, 594 S.W.3d 54. In Arkansas, sentencing is entirely a matter of statute, and this court has consistently held that sentencing shall not be other than in accordance with the statute in effect when the crime was committed. Johnson v. Kelley , 2019 Ark. 230, 577 S.W.3d 710. When the law does not authorize the particular sentence pronounced by a trial court, that sentence is unauthorized and illegal. Id. In habeas proceedings, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. Phillips v. Culclager , 2021 Ark. 149, 2021 WL 2463314. Jefferson does not argue on appeal that he did not commit three prior felonies and concedes that he was charged as a habitual offender.
The judgment of conviction reflects...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Neal v. Payne
...when a judgment and commitment order is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Jefferson v. Payne , 2022 Ark. 4, 637 S.W.3d 264. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris , 369 Ark. 4......
-
Hutcherson v. Payne
...that a court of record has the authority to enter nunc pro tunc judgments to cause the record to speak the truth. Jefferson v. Payne , 2022 Ark. 4, 637 S.W.3d 264. A trial court's power to correct mistakes or errors is to make the record speak the truth, not to make it speak what it did not......