Court Opinion

ID: 9959264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 15:02:28.667526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:45.067891
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. 56
                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                      No. CV-23-552

                                               Opinion Delivered:   April 11, 2024
 LEE STOKES
                              APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
                                        LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT
                                        COURT
 V.
                                        [NO. 40CV-23-11]

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

                                 BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

       Appellant Lee Stokes appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s order denying and

dismissing his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code

Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016). Stokes argues on appeal, as he did

below, that Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), should be expanded and that it was

intended to be applied in an “individualized” manner because there is no neurotypical,

cognitive, or emotional distinction to be made between a “juvenile” teenager and “non-

juvenile” teenager. We affirm.

       Stokes was convicted of capital murder and two counts of first-degree battery for

which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the capital murder and 120

months’ imprisonment for each battery conviction, to be served concurrently with the life

sentence. Stokes appealed, and this court affirmed. Stokes v. State, 359 Ark. 94, 194 S.W.3d

762 (2004).
       On January 30, 2023, Stokes filed in the county where he is incarcerated a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that a mandatory sentence of life

imprisonment without parole for a nineteen-year-old violates the cruel-and-unusual-

punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment; that society’s standards of decency are ever

evolving and that jurisprudence must reflect that evolution; that states have more broadly

interpreted the cruel-and-unusual-punishment clause and that many courts are reexamining

the constitutionality of life without parole with regard to nonjuvenile teenagers; that Miller

implicated an individualization requirement when looking at cases; that nineteen-year-olds

share the qualities of youth that make juveniles “different”; and that expanding Miller to

nineteen-year-olds is the logical next step in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. The

circuit court issued its order denying relief on April 26, 2023, finding that the Arkansas

Supreme Court has refused to extend Miller and Graham and that Stokes had not presented

any evidence or law to support a finding contrary to legal precedent, and as a result, he had

failed to make a showing, by affidavit or other evidence, of probable cause to believe he is

illegally detained.

       Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the

commitment order was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas

corpus should issue. Clay v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 294, 528 S.W.3d 836. A circuit court’s decision

on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v.

Gordon, 2014 Ark. 225, 434 S.W.3d 364. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there

is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with

                                               2
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Ratliff v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 105,

541 S.W.3d 408.

       On appeal, Stokes contends that Miller should be extended to nineteen-year-olds in

Arkansas and that Arkansas’s failure to do so is a blatant disregard for scientific evidence and

the significant role that scientific evidence played in deciding Miller. Essentially, Stokes

argues that there is no difference between sentencing someone who is seventeen years old

to a mandatory sentence of life without parole and someone who is nineteen. He further

argues that his case specifically exemplifies the need for an “individualized approach.” In

claiming that his case exemplifies an “individualized approach,” Stokes argues for the first

time on appeal facts specific to this case regarding his childhood and his IQ. We will not

consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal. Livingston v. Payne, 2023 Ark.

84, 665 S.W.3d 227. Stokes’s remaining claims fail to demonstrate that he is entitled to

habeas relief.

       This court recently addressed the application of Miller to individuals who were

eighteen years old or older at the time of their offenses in Benton v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 237,

607 S.W.3d 96, and in Gibbs v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 29, 660 S.W.3d 579. In Benton, we held

that the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a capital murder committed as an

adult was not illegal on its face, and we noted that the Supreme Court has not extended its

holdings to offenders who were eighteen or older when their crimes were committed. 2020

Ark. 237, at 4, 602 S.W.3d at 98–99. In the same vein, we held in Gibbs that Gibbs’s

sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a capital murder committed as an eighteen-

year-old adult was not illegal on its face. 2023 Ark. 29, at 3, 660 S.W.3d at 582.

                                               3
       Because Stokes was nineteen when he committed the capital murder for which he

was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, we hold that his sentence is not illegal

on its face. When a petitioner fails to show that a judgment of conviction is invalid on its

face, the claim does not implicate the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case and is

therefore not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Gibbs, 2023 Ark. 29, 660 S.W.3d 579. The

circuit court did not err by determining Stokes had failed to show that he had probable

cause to believe he is being illegally detained.

       Affirmed.

       Lee Edwards Stokes, Jr., pro se appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               4