Title: Willie Hutcherson v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 08-337
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: May 22, 2008

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 08-337 WILLIE HUTCHERSON Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appellee Opinion Delivered May 22, 2008 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, CV 2007-111, HON. HARVEY L. YATES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM Appellant Willie Hutcherson is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On August 20, 2007, he filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus and an amended petition in Lee County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the petition and appellant has lodged an appeal of that order in this court. Appellant’s brief was due on April 7, 2008. On April 25, 2008, he tendered seventeen copies of the brief and filed the motion now before us, requesting permission to file the brief. We do not consider the motion because it is clear on the record before us that appellant cannot prevail in his appeal. An appeal of the denial of postconviction 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. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam). Here, it is clear that appellant’s petition did not state grounds upon which habeas relief could be granted. -2- The petitioner carries the burden to establish in a habeas corpus petition 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 798-799. A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case, and is not a substitute for postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). Although his claims are couched as questions of jurisdiction or illegal sentences, appellant did not plead in his petition or amended petition a basis to support either a lack of jurisdiction or that the commitment was facially invalid. In his petition, appellant asserted that the trial court did not have jurisdiction. But, in support of that allegation, he questioned the reliability of a witness’s identification of him and whether that identification evidence should have been admitted. Appellant apparently contended that this trial error made his conviction illegal and void. Appellant also alleged the trial court had incorrectly decided his petition for relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 by erroneously finding that trial counsel was not ineffective. In his amended petition, appellant asserted additional trial error in that the court failed to suppress evidence seized during an allegedly illegal search. Appellant’s claims allege the type of trial error that requires factual inquiry beyond the face of the judgment and is best addressed on direct appeal or in a Rule 37.1 proceeding. See Friend, 364 Ark. at 317, 219 S.W.3d at 125. Evidentiary rulings made at trial or the findings in a Rule 37.1 proceeding cannot be challenged through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Extraordinary relief -3- is not a substitute for an appeal. Dean v. Williams, 339 Ark. 439, 6 S.W.3d 89 (1999). Because appellant did not state a cognizable claim for relief through a writ of habeas corpus, we dismiss the appeal. The motion is therefore moot. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.