Court Opinion

ID: 9961243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:06:03.16049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:29.618882
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. 60
                  SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                         No. CR-22-450

                                                  Opinion Delivered:   April 18, 2024
 JOHN PATRICK CULLEN
                                  APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
                                            GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT
                                            COURT
 V.
                                            [NO. 26CR-18-246]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                           HONORABLE RALPH C. OHM,
                                    APPELLEE JUDGE
                                                  AFFIRMED.

                                  JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice

       Appellant John Patrick Cullen appeals from the Garland County Circuit Court’s order

denying his petitions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, writ of error coram nobis, and writ

of habeas corpus. For reversal, Cullen argues that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant the

petitions for writ of error coram nobis and writ of habeas corpus.1 We affirm.

                                             I. Facts

       In 2018, Cullen pleaded nolo contendere to second-degree sexual assault of Kathi

Brinkley. In exchange for Cullen’s plea, the State dismissed a harassment charge of the second

victim, Kati Knight, and did not pursue an enhanced sentence based on Cullen’s habitual-

offender status that included more than four prior felony convictions. The Garland County

Circuit Court sentenced Cullen to seventy-two months’ imprisonment. Cullen did not appeal

his conviction or his sentence.

       1
        On appeal, Cullen does not challenge the circuit court’s denial of his petition for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis.
       On December 13, 2021, Cullen filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the

Garland County Circuit Court where he was convicted. Subsequently, on January 27, 2022,

he filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections

16-112-201 through -208 (Repl. 2016). In his habeas petition, Cullen alleged that he was

innocent based on the discovery of “new evidence.” This new evidence consisted of Brinkley’s

statements to investigators that allegedly contained factual errors and Knight’s admission that

she did not witness the sexual assault of Brinkley. Cullen contended that Brinkley’s inconsistent

statements to investigating officers, along with Knight’s admission, established his innocence.

On February 28, 2022, Cullen filed a second habeas petition pursuant to sections 16-112-101

to -123 (Repl. 2016). In the second petition, Cullen contended entitlement to the writ because

the affidavit that supported probable cause for his arrest contained fabrications created by his

accuser, Brinkley.

       On March 7, 2022, the circuit court entered an order finding that Cullen had failed “to

state a cause of action upon which this relief could be granted” and had failed “to assert any

grounds for which he could successfully pursue these claims.” Because Cullen had failed to state

cognizable grounds for the issuance of either writ, the circuit court denied the petitions. On

appeal, Cullen contends that the circuit court erred in denying his petitions for writ of error

coram nobis and habeas corpus.

                                  II. Writ of Error Coram Nobis

       Our standard of review of an order entered by the circuit court granting or denying a

petition for writ of error coram nobis is whether the circuit court abused its discretion.

Strawhacker v. State, 2022 Ark. 134, at 7, 645 S.W.3d 326, 332. An abuse of discretion occurs

when the court acts arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id., 645 S.W.3d at 332. The circuit court’s

                                                2
findings of fact on which it bases its decision to grant or deny the petition for writ of error

coram nobis will not be reversed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous or clearly against

the preponderance of the evidence. Id., 645 S.W.3d at 332. There is no abuse of discretion in

the denial of error coram nobis relief when the claims in the petition are groundless. Id., 645

S.W.3d at 332.

       In coram nobis proceedings, there is a strong presumption that the conviction is valid.

Bragg v. State, 2023 Ark. 66, at 10, 663 S.W.3d 375, 382. The petitioner bears the burden of

demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record. Id., 663 S.W.3d at 382. A

writ of error coram nobis is available for addressing certain errors that are found in one of four

categories: (1) insanity at the time of trial, (2) a coerced guilty plea, (3) material evidence

withheld by the prosecutor, or (4) a third-party confession to the crime during the time between

conviction and appeal. Id., 663 S.W.3d at 382.

       A claim of actual innocence is a direct attack on the judgment and is not cognizable in

proceedings for a writ of error coram nobis. Alexander v. State, 2019 Ark. 171, at 6, 575 S.W.3d

401, 406. Assertions that the victim was not a credible witness are also not grounds for the writ.

Dobbins v. State, 2022 Ark. 123, at 4, 644 S.W.3d 419, 423. Such claims are not within the

purview of a coram nobis action. Id., 644 S.W.3d at 423.

       We agree with the circuit court’s ruling for the following reasons. First, in his petition

for writ of error coram nobis, Cullen alleged that he was innocent on the basis of Knight’s

testimony in a federal bankruptcy hearing that she did not witness the sexual assault of Brinkley.2

       2
        There is no evidence in the multiple documents attached to Cullen’s petitions,
including the statements of both Brinkley and Knight, that Knight had ever claimed to have
witnessed the sexual assault of Brinkley.

                                                3
According to Cullen, Knight’s admission demonstrated that Brinkley had fabricated the sexual-

assault accusation. On appeal, Cullen does not raise the issue of Knight’s bankruptcy-hearing

testimony wherein she admitted that she did not witness, or have knowledge of, Brinkley’s

sexual assault. We have held that arguments made to the circuit court but not included in the

arguments on appeal are considered abandoned. Sylvester v. State, 2017 Ark. 309, at 2, 530

S.W.3d 346, 348.

       Next, Cullen’s claim of actual innocence is not cognizable under our current law, and

the factual allegations with respect to Knight’s admissions that were raised in his petition filed

in the circuit court have been abandoned on appeal. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Cullen’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Nelson v.

State, 2014 Ark. 91, at 6, 431 S.W.3d 852, 856. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s denial

of Cullen’s petition for writ of error coram nobis.

                                   III. Writ of Habeas Corpus

       A circuit court’s decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it

is clearly erroneous. Hogan v. Payne, 2023 Ark. 99, at 4, 668 S.W.3d 466, 469. 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. Id., 668 S.W.3d at 469.

       Cullen’s first petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed pursuant to Arkansas Code

Annotated section 16-112-201, wherein Cullen claimed actual innocence based on documents

in which false statements were allegedly made regarding the date the assault was reported and

inconsistent statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the assault. Cullen again

alleged that there were no witnesses to the assault, as established by Knight’s testimony in

                                                4
bankruptcy court. Cullen further alleged in a supplement to his initial habeas petition that the

affidavit supporting his arrest warrant was invalid because it contained Brinkley’s false and

inconsistent statements to investigators. According to Cullen, the investigating officer failed to

properly investigate the allegations of sexual assault, and the failure to conduct a thorough

investigation violated his right to due process. On appeal, Cullen now makes the same

contentions. However, as previously noted, Cullen has abandoned the allegation regarding

Knight’s admission that she did not witness the assault.

       Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208,

as amended by Act 2250 of 2005, provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue on the basis of

new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense for which he was

convicted. Makkali v. State, 2022 Ark. 24, at 2, 638 S.W.3d 280, 282. A petition for writ of

habeas corpus alleging entitlement to new scientific testing must be addressed to the court that

entered the conviction. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a); see also Hill v. Kelley, 2018 Ark.

118, at 4, 542 S.W.3d 852, 855. Cullen filed his first habeas petition in the proper court.

       Although Cullen’s notice of appeal does not clearly designate the circuit court’s ruling

on both habeas petitions, he argues on appeal that he is entitled to habeas relief based on a claim

of actual innocence. To the extent that Cullen is challenging the denial of his petition filed

pursuant to section 16-112-201, he does not specify any scientific evidence that would support

his claim of innocence. When a petitioner fails to provide factual support for the claim that

there is scientific evidence that bears on his case, he has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled

to relief pursuant to section 16-112-201(a). Marshall v. State, 2017 Ark. 208, at 4, 521 S.W.3d

456, 459. If the petitioner does not state the specific scientific evidence to be tested, then his

petition is wholly without merit under the statute. Id., 521 S.W.3d at 459. While Cullen filed

                                                 5
his habeas petition alleging his innocence pursuant to section 16-112-201, we conclude that he

has failed to state a colorable claim under the statute.

       With respect to the second habeas petition, Cullen alleged in the trial court and on

appeal that he is entitled to relief because the probable-cause affidavit supporting his arrest was

false and defective. Cullen contends that his defective arrest warrant rendered his conviction

invalid and that the failure to adequately investigate the alleged inconsistencies in Brinkley’s

statements violated his right to due process.

       This court has stated that a petitioner 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 trial court’s lack of jurisdiction and make a showing, by affidavit or other evidence, of

probable cause to believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Fuller/Akbar v. Payne, 2021

Ark. 155, at 2, 628 S.W.3d 366, 368 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1)). 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. Id.,

628 S.W.3d at 368. Finally, an invalid arrest warrant does not constitute grounds for habeas

relief. Grimes v. State, 2018 Ark. 407, at 3–4, 562 S.W.3d 215, 217. Thus, because Cullen has

not alleged that his sentence is illegal or that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction,

we conclude that he has failed to state a colorable cause of action for habeas relief.

       Further, Cullen’s second habeas petition was not filed in the correct jurisdiction. Any

petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the

circuit court located in the county where the prisoner is held in custody. Perry v. State, 2018

Ark. 14, at 2, 535 S.W.3d 264, 265. Although a circuit court may have subject-matter

jurisdiction to issue the writ, a court does not have personal jurisdiction to issue and make

                                                 6
returnable before itself a writ of habeas corpus to release a petitioner held in another county.

Id., 535 S.W.3d at 265. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-105 requires that the writ be

directed to the person in whose custody the petitioner is detained. Id., 535 S.W.3d at 265.

Here, Cullen is currently housed in the Grimes Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction.

The Grimes Unit is located in Jackson County. Cullen filed his second habeas petition in

Garland County, which is where he was convicted. Therefore, we conclude that the circuit

court did not have personal jurisdiction to issue a writ even if Cullen had stated a legitimate

ground for relief. In sum, because Cullen has not clearly stated that he is appealing the circuit

court’s ruling on both habeas petitions, we affirm.

       Affirmed.

       WEBB, J., concurs.

       John P. Cullen, pro se appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               7