Title: Ollis X. Heard v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 04-357
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 2004

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION May 13, 2004 OLLIS X. HEARD Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee 04-357 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, NO. CV 2003-144, HON. HAROLD S. ERWIN, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT Per Curiam Ollis X. Heard was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Heard v. State, 316 Ark. 731, 876 S.W.2d 231 (1994). On August 7, 2003, Heard filed in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was denied, and an appeal from the order has lodged been lodged here. Appellant Heard now requests an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. It is well settled that the burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding 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. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity of the commitment or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 (1987). See Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 478 (1989). The appeal is dismissed as it is clear that appellant could not succeed on appeal. The motion for extension of time is moot. Appellant contended in the habeas petition that he was innocent of the offense of which he was convicted, that inadmissible evidence was admitted at his trial, and that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict. The claims could have been raised at trial and are not sufficient to show that the commitment was facially invalid or that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Thus, the court did not err in declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 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); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987). Appeal dismissed; motion denied.