Court Opinion

ID: 9378018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 16:02:34.13694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:18.494054
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 29
                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                        No.   CV-22-194

                                                   Opinion Delivered:   March 9, 2023
 BOBBY J. GIBBS
                              APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
                                        LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT
                                        COURT
 V.                                     [NO. 40CV-21-124]

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

                             JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice

       Appellant Bobby J. Gibbs appeals the Lincoln County Circuit Court’s order

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

Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016). For reversal, Gibbs argues that the

circuit court erred in (1) refusing to extend the holding in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460

(2012), to individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, and (2) depriving him

of an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

                                              I. Facts

       On April 20, 1981, Gibbs pleaded guilty to capital murder and was sentenced to life

imprisonment without parole. He was eighteen years old when he committed the murder.

On December 27, 2021, Gibbs filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. He sought

an expansion of the holding in Miller, 567 U.S. at 479, which prohibits mandatory life-

without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders, to include individuals who were between
the ages of eighteen and twenty-one at the time of their offenses. The circuit court dismissed

the habeas petition, finding that Gibbs was eighteen years old when he committed the capital

murder and that he failed to make a showing of probable cause to believe that he was illegally

detained. He appeals from that order.

                                   II. Writ of Habeas Corpus

       On appeal, Gibbs makes the same argument that he raised in his petition to the circuit

court. He also contends that the circuit court erroneously deprived him of an evidentiary

hearing. 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, at 5, 434 S.W.3d 364, 367. A

decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate

court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made. Ratliff v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 105, at 2, 541 S.W.3d 408, 409.

                                      A. Applicable Law

       A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its

face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465,

at 4, 477 S.W.3d 503, 505. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the

subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 413, 255 S.W.3d 466, 471 (2007).

A petitioner for the writ who does not allege his or her actual innocence and proceed under

Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of

jurisdiction by the circuit court and show, by affidavit or other evidence, probable cause to

believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Id., 255 S.W.3d at 471; Ark. Code Ann. §

16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Unless the petitioner can show that the circuit court lacked

                                               2
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, at 2, 528

S.W.3d 836, 838.

                                    B. Claims for Relief

       Gibbs first argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to expand the Miller

prohibition on mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles to include offenders

who were between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. In Benton v. Kelley, 2020 Ark.

237, 602 S.W.3d 96, this court addressed the application of Miller to individuals who were

eighteen years old or older at the time of their offenses. In Benton, we held that Benton’s

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

adult was not illegal on its face. Id. at 4, 602 S.W.3d at 99. We noted that the Supreme

Court has not extended its holdings to offenders who were eighteen or older when their

crimes were committed, and federal courts that have addressed this issue have rejected the

application of the reasoning in both Miller and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), to

claims raised by petitioners who were eighteen or older when their crimes were committed.

Id. at 3, 602 S.W.3d at 98.

       Here, because Gibbs was eighteen years old 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 the petitioner does not show that the 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. Id. at 4, 602 S.W.3d at 99.

                                              3
Thus, the circuit court did not clearly err when it determined that Gibbs had failed to state

grounds demonstrating probable cause that he is being illegally detained.

       Next, Gibbs contends that the circuit court should have held a hearing on his habeas

petition. Our statutory scheme does not mandate a hearing on a petition for writ of habeas

corpus regardless of the allegations contained in it. Noble v. State, 2019 Ark. 284, at 3, 585

S.W.3d 671, 674. A hearing is not required on a habeas petition when probable cause for

issuance of the writ is not shown by affidavit or other evidence. Id., 585 S.W.3d at 674.

Gibbs failed to show probable cause for issuance of the writ; therefore, he did not establish

that he was entitled to a hearing. Id., 585 S.W.3d at 674.

       Affirmed.

       Bobby J. Gibbs, pro se appellant.

       Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                              4