Cite as 2022 Ark. 122

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-21-270

CHARLES E. GOODWIN

APPELLANT

V.

DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: June 2, 2022

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. 39CV-21-33]

HONORABLE DANNY GLOVER, 

JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

Charles E. Goodwin appeals the circuit court’s denial of his pro se petition for writ 

of habeas corpus. Goodwin alleged in the petition that he was actually innocent. Goodwin 

also raised multiple allegations of due-process violations and trial error. The circuit court 

denied the claims based on Goodwin’s failure to establish probable cause for issuance of the 

writ. We affirm because Goodwin failed to state a cognizable claim for habeas relief.

In 2007, a jury convicted Goodwin of attempted capital-felony murder with 

aggravated robbery as the underlying felony offense. Goodwin was sentenced as a habitual 

offender to life imprisonment. We affirmed on direct appeal. Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 

281 S.W.3d 258 (2008). The evidence adduced at trial showed that Goodwin entered a 

clothing store, robbed it, and attempted to murder the store’s owner, Betty Word. Id. The

inculpatory evidence included Word’s testimony, testimony from another witness who was 

present when Goodwin entered the store, and Goodwin’s taped confession. Id. 
2

This court will uphold a circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A 

writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when 

a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 

503. A petitioner for the writ who alleges his or her actual innocence must proceed under 

Act 1780 of 2001 and demonstrate entitlement to scientific testing to prove actual 

innocence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202 (Repl. 2016). Otherwise, the petitioner 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 the 

petitioner is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1).

Goodwin alleged that he was innocent because insufficient evidence supported his 

conviction, and he reasserts this claim on appeal.1 Goodwin also urges this court to broaden 

habeas relief. But this court’s long-standing interpretation of the statute remains the law—a 

habeas inquiry is limited to the face of the commitment order and is not a means to challenge 

the sufficiency of the evidence. Leach v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 200, at 4, 600 S.W.3d 568, 570.

This claim is unsuccessful.

Goodwin also made a conclusory claim that his right to due process was violated. 

However, he fails to specifically describe any violation in his appellate argument. In any 

1On appeal, Goodwin did not reassert the multiple due-process and trial-error claims 

raised in his petition. These claims included, among other claims, allegations of a denial of 

a fair and impartial jury, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, erroneous 

admission of inflammatory evidence, a coerced confession, and a violation of the prohibition 

against double jeopardy. Those claims raised in the circuit court and not reasserted on appeal 

have been abandoned. Owens v. Payne, 2020 Ark. 413, 612 S.W.3d 169. 
3

event, assertions of trial error and due-process violations do not implicate the facial validity 

of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court and are not cognizable in habeas 

proceedings. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465, at 6, 477 S.W.3d 503, 507. The circuit court 

did not clearly err when it denied Goodwin’s petition for failure to demonstrate probable 

cause for issuance of the writ.

Affirmed.

Charles A. Goodwin, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.