Case Title: Charles Alexander/Ryahim v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Citation: 

Docket Number: 04-1303

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 04-1303 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION CHARLES ALEXANDER/RYAHIM Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Appellee Opinion Delivered June 23, 2005 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, LCV 2004-89-2, HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE AFFIRMED PER CURIAM Appellant, Charles Alexander/Ryahim, a.k.a. Charles Alexander, was convicted of one count of first-degree murder for purposefully causing the death of Marquis Brown, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. We affirmed. Alexander v. State, 335 Ark. 131, 983 S.W.2d 110 (1998). We also affirmed the denial of appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. Alexander v. State, CR 00-453 (Ark. Nov. 8, 2001) (per curiam). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, the county in which he is incarcerated, which was denied. From that order comes this appeal. A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 577, 873 S.W.2d 524, 525 (1994). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000) (per curiam). Nordoes it act as a substitute for a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37. Cothrine v. State, 322 Ark. 112, 114, 907 S.W.2d 134, 135 (1995) (per curiam). Appellant stated in his habeas petition that he was entitled to relief on the grounds that: (1) the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a verdict for first-degree murder and (2) that his detention is unlawful because his judgment and commitment order was based upon a jurisdictionally invalid verdict. As for appellant's first claim, he argues that he was indicted for second-degree murder on "bench warrant 97-1299." Therefore, according to appellant, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter a verdict for first-degree murder because a felony information was not filed for first-degree murder charges in case number CR 97-1450. On May 2, 1997, a felony information was filed in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County in case number CR 97-1450, charging appellant with first-degree murder. A bench warrant was also issued directing the arrest of appellant for the offense of first-degree murder. On June 14, 1997, the felony information was amended to add the allegation that appellant was a habitual offender, while maintaining the charge of first-degree murder. Subsequently, in that same case, a jury found appellant guilty of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment and commitment order was filed on July 29, 1997. According to appellant, the information for case number CR 97-1450 was never filed or served. He argues that the only "Felony Information bench warrant" filed was for second-degree murder in case number CR 97-1299, filed May 2, 1997. Accordingly, appellant claims that the charging instrument in case number CR 97-1450 was defective. The record does not provide information regarding a felony information or bench warrant filed in case number CR 97-1299. Moreover, we cannot see how the previous filing of either document under a different case number would in any way invalidate the properly filed information and judgment and commitment order in case number CR 97-1450, in which appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. Because appellant has failed to show prejudice, we affirm the denial of relief on this point. Appellant goes on to argue the judgment and commitment order in case number CR 97-1450 is void because it was not filed with the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. According to the record, the order was filed on July 29, 1997. We therefore affirm the ruling below. Finally, appellant asks this court to order the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County to produce the bench warrant in case number CR 97-1299, as it is not part of the record. However, such a claim is not cognizable in habeas proceedings. As none of appellant's claims was sufficient to establish that the commitment was invalid on its face or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, we affirm. Affirmed.