Court Opinion

ID: 9393821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 15:02:42.954198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.662280
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 80
                  SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                         No.   CV-22-726

                                                  Opinion Delivered:   May 11, 2023
 GARY S. CRAWFORD
                                 APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
                                           LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT
                                           COURT
 V.
                                           [NO. 40CV-22-93]

 DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR,      HONORABLE JODI RAINES
 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF       DENNIS, JUDGE
 CORRECTION
                     APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

                             RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

          Gary S. Crawford, an inmate, appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas

corpus. His writ petition primarily asserted trial errors stemming from charges against him

for multiple crimes in two separate cases. He contends that the State mistakenly arrested,

arraigned, and appointed him counsel twice in one of these cases but never provided him

these rights in the second case. The second case, Crawford claims, resulted in his conviction

for rape and kidnapping and a sentence of 336 months’ imprisonment. The circuit court

concluded that Crawford had failed to state a ground for the writ. We find no error and

affirm.

          In 2004, Crawford was convicted of rape and kidnapping, and he was sentenced to

an aggregate term of 336 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed his direct

appeal, and we affirmed the denial of postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of

Criminal Procedure 37.1. See Crawford v. State, CR-04-1397 (Ark. App. Sept. 21, 2005)
(unpublished); Crawford v. State, CR-07-1051 (Ark. Oct. 2, 2008) (per curiam). In 2022,

Crawford petitioned for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court. The circuit court

dismissed Crawford’s petition. We now consider whether the dismissal was clearly

erroneous.

       Crawford did not proceed under Act 1780 of 2001. Therefore, to succeed on his

writ of habeas corpus, he had to plead that either the judgment is facially invalid or the

circuit court lacked jurisdiction. Finney v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 145, at 3, 598 S.W.3d 26, 28.

He also had to show probable cause, by affidavit or other evidence, that he is being illegally

detained. Id. (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016)). Unless a petitioner

can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment order was invalid

on its face, the writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Id.

       Crawford does not argue that the judgment reflecting his conviction for rape and

kidnapping is invalid on its face. In fact, as the circuit court noted, he fails to include the

judgment and conviction order in his pleadings. Instead, he alleges error in the charging and

trial court process. The result, according to Crawford, is that he was never properly

arraigned, appointed counsel, or served with an arrest warrant for the rape and kidnapping

charges. But these claims of trial error do not implicate the facial validity of the judgment

or the trial court’s jurisdiction. Wade v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 116, 623 S.W.3d 568. Therefore,

the circuit court did not err in dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus.

       Crawford also makes a claim about the sufficiency of the DNA evidence. This also

is a trial-error claim that he needed to raise at trial and on direct appeal. Dobbins v. State,

2022 Ark. 123, 644 S.W.3d 419. Although he tries to mold the sufficiency-of-evidence

                                               2
argument into an actual-innocence claim, it is not the type that we recognize in habeas

proceedings. Clay v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 294, 528 S.W.3d 836. Habeas actions do not give a

petitioner a chance to retry his case. Id.

       Finally, Crawford’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are also outside the

writ of habeas corpus. His arguments involving the adequacy of his counsel should have

been raised in his Rule 37.1 petition. Gardner v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 300; see also State v.

Tejeda-Acosta, 2013 Ark. 217, 427 S.W.3d 673. A habeas proceeding is not a second

opportunity to argue these issues either. See Gardner, 2018 Ark. 300. We therefore affirm

the circuit court’s dismissal of Crawford’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

       Affirmed.

       Gary Crawford, pro se appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               3