Title: Brad A. Meeks v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 05-168 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BRAD A. MEEKS Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered May 19 , 2005 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, FOR APPOINTMENT OF JURY, AND FOR DISCOVERY [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, CV 2003-53, HON. HARVEY LEE YATES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT PER CURIAM Brad A. Meeks, an inmate in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction, 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 to have counsel appointed, to have a jury appointed, and to conduct discovery. We need not consider the motions, as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if permitted to go forward, since he has failed to demonstrate a ground for the writ. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The motions are moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam). 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) (per curiam). 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); also see Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case, and is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). Appellant stated in the habeas petition that he was entitled to relief on the grounds that: (1) he was charged by information rather than indictment by a grand jury; (2) the provision of Arkansas law permitting prosecutors to charge by information is unconstitutional; (3) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during jury selection; (4) he was denied a fair and impartial trial due to the jury selection; (5) he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The court held that appellant was not entitled to relief because he had entered a plea of guilty and was entitled to bail. 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. Appellant attempts to assert his sentence was invalid because he was charged by information, but it is well settled that argument is without merit. See Ruiz v. State, 299 Ark. 144, 165, 772 S.W.2d 297, 308 (1989). His constitutional argument, even if it could be raised in a postconviction proceeding, is also without merit. See Rudd v. State, 76 Ark. App. 121, 125-127, 61 S.W.3d 885, 889-890 (2001). The remaining claims simply do not assert any invalidity of the commitment on its face or lack of jurisdiction. The petition further shows that appellant failed to meet his burden of showing, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. Appellant did not append to the habeas petition a copy of the information or judgment of conviction being challenged, or otherwise substantiate his claims. While appellant did file affidavits, those affidavits only restate his arguments and attempt to assert a claim of actual innocence. They do not provide facts to support an assertion he is illegally detained. No evidence of probable cause to support his assertion of illegal detention was presented to the court. Appeal dismissed; motions moot. Imber, J., not participating.