Title: Isaac Dewayne Russell v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 07-601
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 07­601 ISAAC DEWAYNE RUSSELL Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered November 1, 2007 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF AND FOR ADDITIONAL COPIES AT STATE EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, CV 2007­21, HON. HARVEY LEE YATES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT. PER CURIAM Appellant Isaac Dewayne Russell is an inmate in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court, the county in which he is incarcerated, and that petition was denied. Appellant has lodged an appeal of the order in this court, and in the motions now before us requests an extension of time in order to file appellant’s brief and additional copies of pleadings from the record at public expense. Because it is clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal, we must dismiss his appeal, and the motions are therefore moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief 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 ­2­ Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam). It is well settled that the burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus petition to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (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. Id. at 221, ___ S.W.3d at ___. Appellant’s petition failed to contain issues that might provide a basis which would support issuance of the writ or make a showing of probable cause to believe he is illegally detained, and it is therefore clear that he could not prevail. We first note that the circuit court dismissed appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Any petition for writ ofhabeas corpus to effect the release ofa prisoner is properlyaddressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Lukach v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 26, 2007) (per curiam). Appellant did not invoke Act 1780, and at the time the petition was filed, appellant did appear to be incarcerated in Lee County. Nevertheless, appellant did not provide the circuit court a petition that was sufficient to support issuance of the writ. Appellant’s petition did not provide a copy of the judgment he challenged, but he indicated that he is incarcerated on a conviction for first­degree domestic battery. Previous cases concerning appellant in this court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals indicate that he was convicted on a charge of first­degree domestic battering. See Russell v. State, CR 06­939 (Ark. Oct. 12, 2006) (per curiam); Russell v. State, CACR 05­241 (Ark. App. Oct. 26, 2005). The allegations in appellant’s petition concerned the information and an arrest warrant on the charge, asserting deficiencies that ­3­ appellant claimed resulted in an invalid judgment and loss of jurisdiction by the trial court. Appellant asserted that no warrant was issued, or that the warrant was no longer valid as stale, and that there was no basis for the warrant because of insufficient evidence or lack of probable cause. Appellant further challenged the information as issued without sufficient evidence or probable cause. It is clear that appellant is presently incarcerated not on the basis of the arrest warrant, but on a judgment of conviction for domestic battering. The issues he raised concerning the sufficiency of the warrant and information are the type of factual issues that should be addressed at trial or on direct appeal. 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. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam); Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000) (per curiam). An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as an absolute argument against a valid conviction. Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994). Appellant’s allegations are in essence challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence that was used to support the verdict and that type of challenge requires the type of factual inquiry not appropriate to a habeas proceeding. The issues appellant raised in his petition did not therefore provide a basis which would support issuance of the writ or make a showing of probable cause to believe he is illegally detained. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed; motions moot.