Cit e as 2017 A r k . 320



## S UPREME COURT OF ARKANS AS No . CV-17-672 CARL PRINCE APPELLANT V. WENDY KELLEY , DIRECTOR APPELLEE Opinion Delivered November 16, 2017

MOTION FOR RU LE ON CLERK

DISSENTING OPINION.

J O S E PH I N E L I NKER H AR T, Ju s t ice I refuse t o join t h e m ajorit y’s disposal of t his mat t er by syllabus ent ry. In my view, t his disposit ion could be int erpret ed as part of a syst em at ic effort t o t hwart Mr. Prince’s access to a writ of habeas corpus. That we cannot do. Alt hough Mr. Prince’s filing is st yled “Pro Se M o t ion f or Rule o n t h e Clerk,” 1 it is
act ually a request t hat t his court assum e jurisdict ion over his pet it ion for a writ of habeas corpus. It st at es: 1. C o m e s no w Carl Prince (in pro-se) as a habeas applicant needing t his honorable court t o t ake jurisdict ion of his habeas pet it ion. 2. No Circuit Court has been able t o accept jurisdict ion d ue to m ult iple t ransfers to separat e prison unit s by t he Arkansas Depart m ent of Correct ion. 3. Prince’s habeas pet it i on has m erit as t here is no st at e st at ut e aut h orizing t he “split ” sent ence he is being det ained on.

1 A m o tio n f

o r r u le o n c le rk is a m e c h an i sm p r o vid e d b y A rk an sas Su p re m e Co u rt Ru le 2 -2 w h e re b y t h is c o u r t c an d e al w it h re co rd s an d o t h e r f i lin gs t hat are u n t im e ly t en d e re d

.Cit e as 2017 A r k . 320

WH EREFORE T his m o tion properly request s a Rule on Clerk aut horizing filing of t h e habeas pet it i on and affidavit of indigency. Request ing this court t o t ake jurisdict ion of his habeas pet it ion is em inent ly reasonable. T here is bot h const i t ut i onal aut hority and st at ut ory aut hority f or t h is court t aking jurisdict i on of Mr. Prince’s case. A rt icle 7, sect ion 4, o f t he Arkansas Const it ut ion gives t his court full power t o issue writ s of h abeas c o rpus, as does the Arkansas habeas st at ut e, Arka nsas Code Annot at ed § 16-112-102(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). W h ile dism issing Mr. Prince’s habeas pet it i on

m ay be expedient , it does not com port wit h even t he m o st rudim ent ary concept of just ice. In Simpson v. Sh eriff of Dallas County , 333 Ark. 2 77, 968 S.W.2d 614 (1998), t his court expressed a m ore fit t ing appreciat ion for t h e writ of habeas corpus. The Simpson c ourt not ed

t h at in Ex parte B ollman , 4 Cranch 75, 95 (1807), Chief Just ice John Marshall referred t o t he writ of habeas corpus as t h e “great writ , ” and furt her not ed t hat in Ex parte Yerg er , 8 Wall. 85 (1868), Chief Just ice Salm on P. Chase wrot e t hat t he writ “has been for cent uries est eem ed

t h e best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom .” It is d isconcert ing that t his court

now d e m onst rat es so l it t le regard f or t he great w rit that i t has reduced Mr. Prince’s search for

a court t o hear his pet it ion t o som et hing akin t o t he children’s gam e of “keep away.” In my view, just ice dem ands t hat t his court eit her assum e juris d ict ion of Mr. Price’s habeas pet it ion for t h e p urpose of deciding it o n t h e m e rit s o r sim ply transfer it t o the circuit
court in the c ount

y in which Mr. Prince i s i n c a r c e r at ed. Dism issing his pet it ion for expediency’s sake is abrogat ing t his court ’s responsibilit y as a guarant or of just ice. I respect fully dissent

. B A K E R , J., joins. 2