Mitchell v. State ex rel. Henslee, No. 5-2328

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Writing for the Court: JOHNSON
• Citation: 233 Ark. 578,346 S.W.2d 201
• Parties: Lonnie MITCHELL, Appellant, v. STATE ex rel. Lee HENSLEE, Superintendent of Ark. State Penitentiary, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 08 May 1961
• Docket Number: No. 5-2328

Page 201

346 S.W.2d 201 233 Ark. 578 Lonnie MITCHELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE ex rel. Lee HENSLEE, Superintendent of Ark. State
Penitentiary, Appellee. No. 5-2328. Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 8, 1961.
Rehearing Denied June 5, 1961.

[233 Ark. 579] Thad D. Williams and Christopher C. Mercer, Little Rock, for appellant.

J. Frank Holt, Atty. Gen., by Thorp Thomas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Justice.

On the 11th day of April 1959, appellant, Lonnie B. Mitchell, a Negro 23 years of age, was convicted of raping a crippled white woman 77 years of age, and sentenced to death. On appeal to this Court, the judgment, which was based upon a jury verdict, was unanimously affirmed on September 21, 1959; Mitchell v. State, 230 Ark. 894, 327 S.W.2d 384. In that opinion we said: 'The overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence proves appellant guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt. In fact, there is no contention that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict.' Following this decision, appellant, on January 14, 1960, filed in the Union Circuit Court, where he was originally tried, a motion to vacate the judgment. The motion was overruled and upon appeal the decision of the trial court was affirmed on June 6, 1960. Mitchell v. State, Ark., 337 S.W.2d 663. Thereafter, on September 23, 1960, appellant filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Jefferson Circuit Court. In his petition appellant alleged that his conviction was void in that the death penalty for rape in Arkansas was not imposed upon any person other than Negro men convicted of rape upon white women ¹ and [233 Ark. 580] that such unequal punishment

Page 202

violates his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and laws of the United States. He also alleged that the trial court did not appoint him competent counsel, along with the usual allegations of systematic exclusion and/or limitation of Negroes on the jury panels. ² He further claimed that his confession was coerced and that he is presently insane and was at the time of the commission of the offense.

A hearing was held on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 28, 1960. No evidence was introduced and the trial court dismissed the writ and denied an appeal. Upon proper prayer this Court on November 28, 1960, granted an appeal.

For reversal of the holding of the trial court, appellant relies on two points. His first contention is that: 'Appellant is entitled to a judicial inquiry into the truth and substance on the cause of his detention.' In support of his contention appellant argues that the effect of the trial court's decision denies him the opportunity to prove the allegations contained in his petition.

The law relative to the scope of the inquiry when a writ of habeas corpus is petitioned is well settled in this State. It is concisely set forth in Rowland v. Rogers, 199 Ark. 1041, 137 S.W.2d 246, 247, as follows:

'The rule is that where a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is in custody under process regular on its face, nothing will be inquired into except the jurisdiction of the court whence the process came. Ex parte Williams, 99 Ark. 475, 138 S.W. 985.'

See also Ex parte O'Neal, 191 Ark. 696, 87 S.W.2d 401; State v. Martineau, 149 Ark. 237, 232 S.W. 609; Ex parte Foote, 70 Ark. 12, 65 S.W. 706.

...