Cite as 2021 Ark. 44

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-20-530

MICHAEL ANDERSON

APPELLANT

V.

DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: March 4, 2021

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE

JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT 

COURT

[NO. 35CV-20-419]

HONORABLE JODI RAINES 

DENNIS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

Michael Anderson appeals the circuit court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus as an abuse of the writ. He argues the circuit court clearly erred by not issuing the 

writ. He also contends the circuit court is precluded from finding an abuse of the writ

because it granted his in forma pauperis petition. We affirm the denial of his petition and 

the finding of an abuse of the writ.

A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid 

on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the case. Foreman v. State, 2019 Ark. 

108, 571 S.W.3d 484. A writ proceeding does not require the circuit court to extensively 

review the record of the trial proceedings. Jones v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 290. Unless the 

petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order 

was invalid on its face, there is no basis for the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. Fields 

v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416. We will uphold a circuit court’s decision on a petition for a writ 
2

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

364. 

Anderson has filed multiple postconviction actions attacking his sentence. First, the 

circuit court denied his petition for declaratory judgment and petition to correct an illegal 

sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2016), and we

affirmed on appeal. Anderson v. State, 2017 Ark. 357, 533 S.W.3d 64. Anderson then filed a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that he was illegally detained because the State 

did not name him in the original felony information but amended the information to add 

him. We also affirmed the circuit court’s denial of that petition. Anderson v. Kelley, 2019 

Ark. 6, 564 S.W.3d 516. 

Shortly after, Anderson filed a second pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus 

claiming again that his sentence was illegal because the State added his name in an 

amendment to the original felony information. He also alleged that the sentence was illegal 

because the docket number on the judgment and commitment order omitted his designation 

as “B,” and he argued the circuit court must issue the writ because it granted his petition to 

proceed in forma pauperis. We held that Anderson’s first argument was an abuse of the writ 

because he had raised it in his prior petition. Anderson v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 197, 600 S.W.3d 

544. We affirmed the circuit court’s order because Anderson’s remaining claims did not 

entitle him to relief. Id. Less than thirty days later, Anderson filed the instant pro se petition 

for writ of habeas corpus. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition and found an 

abuse of the writ. He appeals this order.
3

The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine applies in habeas proceedings to subsume res judicata 

when the petitioner raises the same arguments addressed previously without bringing forth 

additional facts to support his or her argument. Anderson, 2020 Ark. 197, 600 S.W.3d 544; 

see Jackson v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 251, 602 S.W.3d 739. Anderson’s single claim in his petition 

for writ of habeas corpus is identical to the one that we found lacked merit the previous

month. Anderson, 2020 Ark. 197, at 5, 600 S.W.3d at 548. We determine whether the 

renewal of a petitioner’s application for the writ will go forward. See Rea v. Kelley, 2020 

Ark. 347; see generally Scott v. State, 2019 Ark. 94, 571 S.W.3d 451. Repeating the same 

claim represents an abuse of the writ, and therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err 

when it denied and dismissed Anderson’s habeas petition.

On appeal, Anderson also contends that the circuit court’s order granting him leave 

to proceed as a pauper mandated issuance of the writ. We addressed this issue in his previous 

appeal, and therefore, we decline to readdress it. Anderson, 2020 Ark. 197, at 6, 600 S.W.3d

at 548. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of the writ and the finding of an abuse of the 

writ.

Affirmed.

WEBB, J., concurs.

Michael Anderson, pro se appellant.

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