Opinion ID: 6111058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Recantation of Trial Testimony

Text: It was Foreman's contention that the writ should issue because in 2017 a key witness recanted her trial testimony that had implicated him as the person who had shot the police officer. He argues that the recantation of the witness's testimony renders the judgment in his case invalid because  no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of first-degree murder if the witness had not perjured herself at his trial. In this case, the circuit court had jurisdiction to render the judgment of conviction; therefore, Foreman was required to show that the judgment was unlawful on its face. Miller v. State , 301 Ark. 59 , 781 S.W.2d 475 (1989). Foreman's allegation that the judgment in his case was obtained by the false testimony of a witness does not demonstrate that the judgment was unlawful on its face. The claim that a witness committed perjury is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction, and an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence is not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Clay v. Kelley , 2017 Ark. 294 , 528 S.W.3d 836 ; see also Johnson v. State , 2018 Ark. 42 , 538 S.W.3d 819 (holding that a defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support rape conviction was outside the purview of habeas corpus relief). Affirmed.