Cite as 2017 Ark. 279

No. CV-17-355

RICKEY TYRONE TAYLOR

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 19, 2017

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR 

EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME, FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND 

FOR DUPLICATION OF MOTION 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 

AT PUBLIC EXPENSE

[LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 

NO. 39CV-15-128]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS

MOOT.

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Rickey Tyrone Taylor appeals from the denial by the circuit court of his 

pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. He subsequently filed four motions for extension 

of time to file his brief-in-chief, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a motion for

duplication of the motion for appointment of counsel at public expense. Taylor argued in 

his habeas petition that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty because the 

State did not abide by the terms of the negotiated plea agreement and because he did not 

agree when he entered his plea to serve seventy percent of his sentence before becoming 

eligible for parole. He conceded that the original judgment and sentence were valid, but 

he contended that the failure of the State to abide by the terms of the plea agreement 

rendered the judgment in his case void. Because Taylor failed to state a ground for the 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 279

2

issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, it is clear from the record that he could not prevail on 

appeal, we dismiss the appeal, and the motions are therefore moot.

A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless 

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

clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after 

reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake 

has been made. Id. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, 

including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward when it 

is clear that the appellant could not prevail. See Green v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d

524 (Appeal from a postconviction order was dismissed when it was clear from the record 

that the appellant could not prevail.).

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

face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 

465, 477 S.W.3d 503. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the 

subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). A 

circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations 

of criminal statutes. Id. Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his 

actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 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 he is being illegally detained. Ark. Code 

Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court 
Cite as 2017 Ark. 279

3

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. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.

Taylor did not state a ground for the writ. A petition to withdraw or otherwise 

vacate a plea of guilty must be filed pursuant to our postconviction rule, Arkansas Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2016). See Webb v. State, 365 Ark. 22, 223 S.W.3d 796 (2006).

Claims of an involuntary plea or of improper plea procedures also do not raise a question of 

a void or illegal sentence that may be addressed in a habeas proceeding. Barber v. Kelley, 

2017 Ark. 214. A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for filing a timely petition

for postconviction relief under the Rule. Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260

(2006). Likewise, habeas proceedings do not extend to issues of parole eligibility. See Blevins 

v. Norris, 291 Ark. 70, 722 S.W.2d 573 (1987); see also Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. 212 (Parole 

eligibility falls clearly within the domain of the executive branch and specifically the 

Arkansas Department of Correction, as fixed by statute.).

Appeal dismissed; motions moot.