Danny Stalnaker v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

2020 Ark. 54, 593 S.W.3d 24

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: February 6, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Digitally signed by Susan P. Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy and Cite as 2020 Ark. 54 integrity of this document SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Date: No. CV-19-481 2020-12-14 12:34:57

DANNY STALNAKER Opinion Delivered: February 6, 2020 APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE HOT V. SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT AND APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, FILE BELATED REPLY BRIEF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF [NO. 30CV-18-431] CORRECTION APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Danny Stalnaker appeals from the denial of his pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016).

Because Stalnaker stated no ground on which the writ could issue under Arkansas law, we

affirm the circuit court’s order.1

In 2013, a Saline County Circuit Court jury found Stalnaker guilty of second-degree

murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender

to an aggregate term of 540 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $20,000. The Arkansas

Court of Appeals affirmed. Stalnaker v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 412, 437 S.W.3d 700.

1Stalnaker has filed a motion to file a belated reply brief. As there is no meritorious

ground for the writ stated in the petition for writ of habeas corpus, there is no need for a reply brief to be filed in this appeal, and the motion is denied. Stalnaker subsequently filed a petition in the trial court under Arkansas Rule of Criminal

Procedure 37.1 (2013) that was denied. This court affirmed the order. Stalnaker v. State,

2015 Ark. 250, 464 S.W.3d 466 (per curiam). Stalnaker filed the petition for writ of habeas

corpus in 2018 in the county where he is incarcerated. See Gardner v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 300

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

to the circuit court in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed

pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 seeking scientific testing of evidence.).

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, 477 S.W.3d 503. 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 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 Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-103, a petitioner for the writ who

does not allege his 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 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 commitment 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.

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

it is clearly erroneous. Tilson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 128, 543 S.W.3d 505. 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.

Stalnaker contended in his habeas petition that the judgment in his criminal case is

void because the trial judge in the case, Bobby D. McAllister, was charged in 2017 with

ethical violations by the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission and with

criminal offenses arising out of his failure to comply with statutes governing the filing of tax

returns and the payment of taxes owed. He further argued that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to render the judgment against him in 2013 because the ethics complaint and

criminal charges were brought against the trial judge in 2017. Stalnaker did not contend that

the sentence imposed on him was outside the statutory range for the offenses of which he

was convicted, nor did he allege that he did not commit the offenses in Saline County where

he was convicted. In short, his ground for the writ was simply that, subsequent to his trial,

the trial judge was accused of failing to abide by certain ethical and legal standards and was

thus shown to be unqualified to preside as a judge.

Stalnaker did not establish that the trial court lacked either subject-matter or personal

jurisdiction in his case or that the judgment entered was illegal on its face. In general,

jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in

controversy. Noble v. Norris, 368 Ark. 69, 243 S.W.3d 260 (2006). Circuit courts have

subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal

3 statutes. McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. Regarding personal jurisdiction,

Stalnaker’s commission of the offenses in Saline County subjected him to being charged and

prosecuted in that county. Anderson v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 6, 564 S.W.3d 516. Because the

trial court had both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over Stalnaker, it had authority

to render the judgment. Foreman v. State, 2019 Ark. 108, 571 S.W.3d 484. The writ will

not issue on the basis of a petitioner’s assertion of the trial judge’s misconduct that does not

implicate the jurisdiction of the court or the facial validity of the judgment. Accordingly,

Stalnaker did not meet his burden of demonstrating, by affidavit or other evidence, probable

cause to believe that he is being illegally detained and entitled to issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus to effect his release from custody. See Grimes v. State, 2018 Ark. 407, 562 S.W.3d

215 (holding that the petitioner for the writ must present evidence of probable cause to

believe that he is being illegally detained for the writ to issue).

HART, J., concurs.

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, concurring. While I agree that Stalnaker has

not stated a ground upon which the writ could issue, I concur for the reasons stated in

Stephenson v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 143, 544 S.W.3d 44 (Hart, J., dissenting). The majority’s

conception of habeas corpus is dated, senselessly narrow, and legally incorrect. We should

abandon the “facial invalidity or lack of jurisdiction” rule and simply apply the plain

language of our constitution and statutes.

Danny W. Stalnaker, pro se appellant.

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