Opinion ID: 6110478
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Legality of Judgment of Conviction

Text: As stated, Anderson argues that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction in his case because he was charged in an amendment to the information originally filed in his brother Myron's case rather than by an original information filed in his individual case and assigned an individual docket number. He contends that the lack of jurisdiction rendered the judgment in his case invalid on its face, and therefore, the writ should issue to effect his release from custody. The original information charging Myron was filed in the Ashley County Circuit Court on November 30, 2006, and assigned docket number CR-2006-197-4. On December 28, 2006, an amended information was filed that added Anderson's name. The amended information bore the docket number CR-2006-197-4 A & B. (Anderson was designated defendant B.) Claims of a defective information that raise a valid jurisdictional issue are cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Philyaw , 2015 Ark. 465 , 477 S.W.3d 503 . However, allegations of a defective information that do not raise such a claim are not generally considered jurisdictional and are, accordingly, treated as trial error. Id. See Williams v. Kelley , 2017 Ark. 200 , 521 S.W.3d 104 (claim that the failure to assign a different case number to severed criminal proceedings failed to provide defendant with adequate due process is the type of claim constituting trial error that must have been raised at trial and is not cognizable in habeas proceedings). Here, Anderson did not allege that the amended felony information that charged him was defective in that it failed to apprise him of the charges against him. Because his allegation did not rest on an assertion of trial error and a lack of due process based on a flaw in the information, Anderson's argument that he was never charged with the offenses would, if established, be a ground for the writ. Anderson's argument that he was never charged fails because he did not establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment of conviction merely because he was charged in an amendment to the felony information that charged Myron. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Love v. Kelley , 2018 Ark. 206 , 548 S.W.3d 145 . Regarding personal jurisdiction, the commission of the offenses by Anderson in Ashley County subjected him to being charged and prosecuted in that county. When the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also had jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court had authority to render the particular judgment. Johnson v. State , 298 Ark. 479 , 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989). In short, charging Michael Anderson in an amendment to the information charging Myron did not deprive the trial court of either subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. In his habeas petition, Anderson relied as authority for his argument on  Whitehead v. State , 316 Ark. 563 , 873 S.W.2d 800 (1994), and State v. Pulaski County Circuit Court , 327 Ark. 287 , 938 S.W.2d 815 (1997) (per curiam). In Whitehead , this court held that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to transfer a matter to juvenile court because no information or indictment had been filed charging the defendant with an offense. 316 Ark. 563 , 873 S.W.2d 800 . Anderson, however, was charged in the amended felony information with the offenses. In Pulaski County Circuit Court , we held that if a defendant seeks relief in a circuit court from a bond established by a lower court, the defendant must first commence his or her action by filing a pleading with the clerk of the superintending circuit court. 327 Ark. 287 , 938 S.W.2d 815 . Neither case stands for the argument posited by Anderson that the judgment in his case was illegal on its face because he was never charged with a criminal offense because he was charged in a joint amended information. Affirmed. Hart, J., concurs.