Opinion ID: 6111335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Watts's Petition for Habeas Relief

Text: A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley , 2015 Ark. 465 , 477 S.W.3d 503 . Because Watts did not allege actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001, he was required to plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. See Garrison v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 8 , 534 S.W.3d 136 ; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Failure to do so precludes any basis for issuing the writ. Fields v. Hobbs , 2013 Ark. 416 , 2013 WL 5775566 . Moreover, assertions of trial error and due process violations do not implicate the validity of a trial court's judgment or jurisdiction. Ratliff v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 105 , 541 S.W.3d 408 . Following a 1997 jury trial, Watts was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, two counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of a controlled substance. He was given an aggregate sentence of sixty years' imprisonment as a habitual offender. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Watts v. State , 68 Ark. App. 47 , 8 S.W.3d 563 (2000). In 1998, Watts was convicted of additional felony offenses and sentenced as  a habitual offender to life imprisonment. He failed to timely appeal that conviction. Watts v. State , CR-00-201, 2000 WL 1448603 (Ark. Sept. 28, 2000) (unpublished per curiam) (denying motion for belated appeal). The claims raised in Watts's petition for writ of habeas corpus were previously raised-and rejected-in a separate habeas petition. See Watts v. State , 2013 Ark. 318 , 2013 WL 4774475 (per curiam). In that petition, as here, Watts alleged that the 1998 trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the 1997 trial court had granted his motion in limine for joinder of offenses. He argued the prosecution was thus collaterally estopped from proceeding with the 1998 trial and made vague references to double jeopardy. The circuit court dismissed the petition for failing to state a colorable claim. Id. We agreed and found that Watts had failed to establish that either trial court lacked jurisdiction to try and convict him for the separate offenses. Id. We further noted that Watts's references to double jeopardy failed to state a claim for habeas relief because Watts had not alleged or established that the second commitment order imposed a facially illegal sentence. Id. In the instant case, Watts raised the same claims and factual allegations for habeas relief that he had raised previously and that had been clearly rejected by this court. Id. As with coram nobis petitions, the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine may apply in habeas proceedings to subsume res judicata in cases where the petitioner raises the same arguments addressed previously without bringing forward additional facts that would support his or her argument. Anderson v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 222 , at 4 n.3, 549 S.W.3d 913 , 915 n.3. Watts's latest iteration of his claims represents an abuse of the writ. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it held that Watts had failed to state a colorable claim for habeas relief as the same claims had been previously addressed and found to be outside the purview of habeas proceedings. Affirmed; motions moot. Hart, J., dissents.