Title: John P. Ragsdale v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, and State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 07-842
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 07­842 JOHN P. RAGSDALE Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, AND STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellees Opinion Delivered December 6, 2007 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CV 2007­297, HON. ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM Appellant John P. Ragsdale is an inmate incarcerated in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Jefferson CountyCircuit Court, the countyin which he is incarcerated, and that petition was denied. Appellant has lodged an appealof the order in this court, and in the motion now before us requests an extension of time in order to file appellant’s brief. We dismiss the appeal, and appellant’s motion is therefore moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal ofthe denialofpostconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Booth v. State, 353 Ark. 119, 110 S.W.3d 759 (2003) (per curiam); Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per ­2­ 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 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam). Here, it is clear that appellant cannot prevail because his petition failed to set forth claims that are cognizable in a habeas proceeding. 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, 226 S.W.3d 797 (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, 226 S.W.3d at 798­799. Appellant’s petitionfor a writ ofhabeas corpus purported to state five groundsfor reliefbased upon various claims of procedural defects during the trial. Two claims asserted violations of appellant’s right to due process as guaranteed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The first of those two claims asserted the prosecution’s alleged failure to provide information concerning a confidential informant, and the second involved a similar allegation about information as to a codefendant’s confession. Two additional claims were based upon alleged prosecutorial misconduct. One of those claims concerned testimony at trial that appellant asserted was perjured and the State’s subsequent use of that testimony during proceedings on appellant’s petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The other claim concerned statements made by the prosecutor during the trial about the existence of a plea agreement with a codefendant that appellant alleged were false. Appellant’s last stated ground for relief was based upon his claim that evidence was used at trial which had been obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The circuit court correctly found in ­3­ its order that these claims did not state grounds cognizable in a petition for the writ. 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). Due process violations as claimed by appellant, including Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and illegal searches or other irregularities at trial, are factual issues that should have been addressed during trial or through a direct appeal. See id. None of appellant’s claims was sufficient to establish that the commitment was invalid on its face or that the trial court was without jurisdiction, as is required for habeas corpus relief. Each of appellant’s claims should have been raised in an earlier proceeding. Because appellant failed to state cognizable claims, he did not meet his burden and his petition failed to show any basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.