Cite as 2020 Ark. 251 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-19-984
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2020 ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 40CV-19-127] WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, CORRECTION JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Anarian Chad Jackson appeals an order of the Lincoln County Circuit
Court dismissing his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). On appeal, he argues the same claims for
habeas relief raised in the petition filed below. He also contends that the circuit court erred
when it failed to require the State to respond to his petition and when it failed to appoint
counsel and conduct a hearing on his petition. We find no error and affirm.
I. Facts
In 2003, a jury found Jackson guilty of second-degree murder for which he was
sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment. Jackson’s conviction and sentence were affirmed
on appeal. Jackson v. State, CR-03-1127 (Ark. App. Dec. 1, 2004) (unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 03-1127). Jackson subsequently filed multiple petitions for
postconviction relief, all of which have been unsuccessful.
In 2008, this court rejected Jackson’s habeas claim that the trial court stripped itself
of subject-matter jurisdiction when it instructed the jury as to second-degree murder on the
premise that it is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. Jackson v. Norris, 07-785
(Ark. Dec. 4, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). In that previous petition, Jackson also
claimed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment of
conviction for second-degree murder because there was no rational basis to support the
conviction since Jackson’s defense at trial was total innocence. This court likewise rejected
this argument and found there was no authority supporting Jackson’s claim but that the
refusal to give such an instruction would be reversible error if a lesser-included offense is
supported by even the slightest evidence. Id.
On October 2, 2019, Jackson filed in the circuit court in the county where he is
incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleged in his petition that the trial
court did not have jurisdiction to convict him of second-degree murder when Jackson was
charged with first-degree murder, and there was no rational basis to support a conviction
for the lesser-included offense. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition on the
basis that Jackson had repeated claims that were unsuccessfully presented in previous
habeas petitions.
II. Writ of Habeas Corpus
2 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 the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made. Id.
A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is
invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Foreman v. State,
2019 Ark. 108, 571 S.W.3d 484. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and
determine the subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d
466 (2007). When the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment.
Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989). Under our statute, 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 trial
court and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that
he or she is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016).
Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment
was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should
issue. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
III. Abuse of the Writ
3 The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine may apply in habeas proceedings to subsume res
judicata when the petitioner raises the same arguments addressed previously without
bringing forward additional facts that would support his or her argument. Watts v. Kelley,
2019 Ark. 207, 575 S.W.3d 558. Jackson has raised the same claims for relief that he had
raised in this previous petition for habeas relief, and they were found to be without merit.
Jackson, 07-785 (Ark. Dec. 4, 2008). The repetition of his previous claims represents an
abuse of the writ. For these reasons, the circuit court did not clearly err when it dismissed
Jackson’s petition on the basis that Jackson’s claims had been previously raised and
rejected.
IV. Allegations of Circuit Court Error
Jackson alleges that the circuit court erred when it refused to require the State to
respond to his petition. The State was not required to file a response until the court made
a determination of probable cause. Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314, 530 S.W.3d 332.
Here, the circuit court dismissed the petition and did not make a determination of
probable cause. Thus, the State was not required to file a response to Jackson’s habeas
petition.
The same is true with regard to Jackson’s assertion that the circuit court was
required to appoint an attorney and conduct a hearing on his habeas petition. While our
statutory habeas corpus scheme contemplates a hearing in the event the writ is issued, there
is no requirement that a hearing be held regardless of the content of the petition. Sims v.
State, 2018 Ark. 271, 555 S.W.3d 868. A hearing is not required on a habeas petition— 4 even when the petition alleges an otherwise cognizable ground—when probable cause for
the issuance of the writ is not shown by affidavit or other evidence. Id. Again, as Jackson
failed to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the writ, the circuit court was not
required to hold a hearing on his petition.
Affirmed.
HART, J., concurs.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, concurring. The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine was
announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Wong Doo v. United States, 265
U.S. 239 (1924). As originally conceived, the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine is equitable in
nature and subsumes the doctrine of res judicata. 265 U.S. at 240–41. As such, it is not
sufficient that a petitioner merely raise the same or a very similar claim; there must be an
element of intentional manipulation of the system. Accordingly, the majority has erred in
relying on the Wong line of cases.
Nonetheless, in my view, the circuit court’s decision to dismiss. Jackson’s case
should be affirmed. The issues he raises in his habeas petition fail, as a matter of law, to
establish that he was unlawfully detained. Jackson alleged that the trial court lacked
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. 251 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-19-984
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2020 ANARIAN CHAD JACKSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 40CV-19-127] WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, CORRECTION JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Anarian Chad Jackson appeals an order of the Lincoln County Circuit
Court dismissing his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). On appeal, he argues the same claims for
habeas relief raised in the petition filed below. He also contends that the circuit court erred
when it failed to require the State to respond to his petition and when it failed to appoint
counsel and conduct a hearing on his petition. We find no error and affirm.
I. Facts
In 2003, a jury found Jackson guilty of second-degree murder for which he was
sentenced to eighty years’ imprisonment. Jackson’s conviction and sentence were affirmed
on appeal. Jackson v. State, CR-03-1127 (Ark. App. Dec. 1, 2004) (unpublished) (original docket no. CACR 03-1127). Jackson subsequently filed multiple petitions for
postconviction relief, all of which have been unsuccessful.
In 2008, this court rejected Jackson’s habeas claim that the trial court stripped itself
of subject-matter jurisdiction when it instructed the jury as to second-degree murder on the
premise that it is a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder. Jackson v. Norris, 07-785
(Ark. Dec. 4, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). In that previous petition, Jackson also
claimed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment of
conviction for second-degree murder because there was no rational basis to support the
conviction since Jackson’s defense at trial was total innocence. This court likewise rejected
this argument and found there was no authority supporting Jackson’s claim but that the
refusal to give such an instruction would be reversible error if a lesser-included offense is
supported by even the slightest evidence. Id.
On October 2, 2019, Jackson filed in the circuit court in the county where he is
incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He alleged in his petition that the trial
court did not have jurisdiction to convict him of second-degree murder when Jackson was
charged with first-degree murder, and there was no rational basis to support a conviction
for the lesser-included offense. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition on the
basis that Jackson had repeated claims that were unsuccessfully presented in previous
habeas petitions.
II. Writ of Habeas Corpus
2 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 the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made. Id.
A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is
invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Foreman v. State,
2019 Ark. 108, 571 S.W.3d 484. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and
determine the subject matter in controversy. Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d
466 (2007). When the trial court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and also has
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court has authority to render the judgment.
Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989). Under our statute, 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 trial
court and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that
he or she is being illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016).
Unless the petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment
was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should
issue. Fields v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 416.
III. Abuse of the Writ
3 The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine may apply in habeas proceedings to subsume res
judicata when the petitioner raises the same arguments addressed previously without
bringing forward additional facts that would support his or her argument. Watts v. Kelley,
2019 Ark. 207, 575 S.W.3d 558. Jackson has raised the same claims for relief that he had
raised in this previous petition for habeas relief, and they were found to be without merit.
Jackson, 07-785 (Ark. Dec. 4, 2008). The repetition of his previous claims represents an
abuse of the writ. For these reasons, the circuit court did not clearly err when it dismissed
Jackson’s petition on the basis that Jackson’s claims had been previously raised and
rejected.
IV. Allegations of Circuit Court Error
Jackson alleges that the circuit court erred when it refused to require the State to
respond to his petition. The State was not required to file a response until the court made
a determination of probable cause. Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314, 530 S.W.3d 332.
Here, the circuit court dismissed the petition and did not make a determination of
probable cause. Thus, the State was not required to file a response to Jackson’s habeas
petition.
The same is true with regard to Jackson’s assertion that the circuit court was
required to appoint an attorney and conduct a hearing on his habeas petition. While our
statutory habeas corpus scheme contemplates a hearing in the event the writ is issued, there
is no requirement that a hearing be held regardless of the content of the petition. Sims v.
State, 2018 Ark. 271, 555 S.W.3d 868. A hearing is not required on a habeas petition— 4 even when the petition alleges an otherwise cognizable ground—when probable cause for
the issuance of the writ is not shown by affidavit or other evidence. Id. Again, as Jackson
failed to demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the writ, the circuit court was not
required to hold a hearing on his petition.
Affirmed.
HART, J., concurs.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, concurring. The abuse-of-the-writ doctrine was
announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Wong Doo v. United States, 265
U.S. 239 (1924). As originally conceived, the abuse-of-the-writ doctrine is equitable in
nature and subsumes the doctrine of res judicata. 265 U.S. at 240–41. As such, it is not
sufficient that a petitioner merely raise the same or a very similar claim; there must be an
element of intentional manipulation of the system. Accordingly, the majority has erred in
relying on the Wong line of cases.
Nonetheless, in my view, the circuit court’s decision to dismiss. Jackson’s case
should be affirmed. The issues he raises in his habeas petition fail, as a matter of law, to
establish that he was unlawfully detained. Jackson alleged that the trial court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction because it gave a jury instruction “premised upon second-degree
murder being a lesser-included offense of first-degree murder.” Jackson also alleged that
the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction for
second-degree murder because “no rational basis” supported the court’s action.
5 In Arkansas, subject-matter jurisdiction is defined as a court’s authority to hear and
decide a particular type of case. Nance v. State, 2014 Ark. 201, 433 S.W.3d 872. A court
only lacks subject-matter jurisdiction if it cannot hear a matter “under any circumstances”
and is “wholly incompetent to grant the relief sought.” Id. (citing Edwards v. Edwards, 2009
Ark. 580, at 4, 357 S.W.3d 445, 448. An Arkansas circuit court obtains subject-matter
jurisdiction when it is conferred under the Arkansas Constitution or by means of
constitutionally authorized statutes or court rules. Id. Arkansas Code Annotated section
16-88-101(a)(3) provides:
(3) The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the district court, for the trial of offenses defined as felonies by state law and shall have original jurisdiction concurrent with the district court for the trial of offenses defined as misdemeanors.
Accordingly, the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to try Jackson’s murder
charge. He was tried in circuit court and convicted. Thus he was not unlawfully detained.
I concur.
Anarian Chad Johnson, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.