Opinion ID: 4565023
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims for Habeas Relief

Text: As stated above, Jackson alleges for a second time that his judgment of conviction is illegal on its face because it was signed by Judge Bogard, who did not preside over his trial and therefore did not have the authority to sign the judgment. Jackson is mistaken. Jurisdiction is granted to a particular position—that is, to a particular court—and not to the person who fills it. Lukach v. State, 2018 Ark. 208, 548 S.W.3d 810 (citing Simpson v. State, 310 Ark. 493, 837 S.W.2d 475 (1992)). Here, Judge Bogard was the circuit judge elected in the judicial district where Jackson was tried and convicted, and Judge Bogard had authority to sign the judgment reflecting the jury’s verdict. Jackson’s reliance on Waddle v. Sargent, 313 Ark. 539, 855 S.W.2d 919 (1993), is misplaced because that case involved the lack of jurisdiction of judges who were not elected in the judicial district where the crime was committed. Jackson’s further reliance on Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-13211(d) (Repl. 2016) for the proposition that a presiding judge is required to sign the judgment is likewise misplaced because that statute is relevant to proceedings “where a jury is waived and a cause is submitted for trial before the court sitting as a jury.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-211(b). Here, Jackson was tried by a jury, and this statute is not applicable. Jackson’s additional claims for relief are not cognizable in a habeas proceeding because his claims represent allegations of trial error. Assertions of trial error and due- 4 process claims do not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court because the writ will not issue to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. Stephenson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 143, 544 S.W.3d 44. There is no merit to Jackson’s claim that the admission into evidence of a particular pretrial statement deprived the court of jurisdiction. A challenge to the admission of evidence is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Tilson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 128, 543 S.W.3d 505. Finally, Jackson’s contention that Judge Bogard did not have jurisdiction to enter the judgment because he did not recuse himself is also without merit. Claims of judicial bias amount to allegations of trial error and are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509