Case Title: James Betts v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION October 21, 2004 JAMES BETTS Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appellee 04-603 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CV 2004-132-1, HON. BERLIN C. JONES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT Per Curiam In 1992, James Betts entered a plea of guilty to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of theft by receiving. He was sentenced to serve an aggregate sentence of forty years' imprisonment. In 2003, the judgment and commitment order was twice amended to correct errors. On February 20, 2004, Betts filed in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was denied, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Appellant now seeks an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. The appeal is dismissed as it is clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal. The motion for extension of time is moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant cannot succeed on appeal. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987). Unless a 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. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990). 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. Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 (1987). See Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 478 (1989), see also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991). The allegations raised by appellant in the habeas petition were not sufficient to demonstrate that the commitment was invalid or that the court lacked jurisdiction. Appellant argued that: (1) he was denied a speedy trial; (2) he was extradited from Kansas to Arkansas illegally; (3) he was denied counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings against him; and (4) the trial court had covered up its mistakes with respect to his case by "continuously" altering and amending the judgment and commitment order. There was no showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he was illegally detained. The mere claims made by appellant did not show that he the commitment was invalid on its face or that the court lacked jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed; motion denied.