James Ray Davis v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 185

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: November 20, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 185 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-174

Opinion Delivered: November 20, 2025 JAMES RAY DAVIS APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 34CV-22-129]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROB RATTON, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

KAREN R. BAKER, Chief Justice

Appellant James Ray Davis appeals from the denial of his pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-201 (Repl. 2016) filed

in the county where he is currently incarcerated. In 2017, Davis pleaded guilty to multiple

charges including commercial and residential burglary. Attached to his petition were

multiple affidavits that are difficult to decipher but appear to allege that his sentence is illegal

because his guilty plea was the result of deception and malice by the prosecutor,

incompetence by his counsel, and malfeasance by the trial court. Davis further alleged that

he was convicted and sentenced in violation of the constitution and due process.

While Davis used the form for habeas relief that lists section 16-112-201 at the top

of the petition, Davis did not claim actual innocence or request scientific testing. Sections

16-112-201 to -208 provide 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. Cullen v. State, 2024 Ark. 60, 687 S.W.3d 114. Moreover, as stated above,

Davis filed his petition in the county of his incarceration, and a petition filed pursuant to

section 16-112-201 must be filed in the county where Davis was convicted. See Gipson v.

State, 2019 Ark. 310, 586 S.W.3d 603. Since Davis did not state a claim for relief pursuant

to section 16-112-201, Davis’s petition will be treated as a petition filed in accordance with

sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2016).

The circuit court denied the petition on the basis of Davis’s failure to state a

cognizable action for the writ to issue. The circuit court’s ruling in a habeas proceeding will

be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Lea v. State, 2025 Ark. 84, 711 S.W.3d 295. A

decision is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing all the evidence, is

left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.

A writ of habeas corpus issued pursuant to section 16-112-101 is proper when a

judgment and commitment order is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks

jurisdiction over the cause. Stewart v. Payne, 2024 Ark. 48, 686 S.W.3d 508. Jurisdiction is

the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Id. When

the circuit court has personal jurisdiction over the appellant and over the subject matter, the

court has authority to render the judgment. Id. A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction

to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes and has personal

jurisdiction over offenses committed within the county over which it presides. Id.

A petitioner for the writ who does not allege his or her actual innocence pursuant to

Act 1780 of 2001 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the circuit court’s

lack of jurisdiction and make a showing, by affidavit or other evidence, of probable cause

2 to believe that he or she is being illegally detained. Id. Proceedings for the writ do not

require an extensive review of the record of the trial proceedings, and the circuit court’s

inquiry into the validity of the judgment is limited to the face of the commitment order. Id.

Unless the petitioner can show that the circuit 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.

Here, Davis failed to provide a sentencing order containing the sentences that he

alleges are illegal. Because Davis pleaded guilty, there is no direct appeal record from which

to take notice of the sentencing order, and without the order or access to the order, Davis

has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is facially illegal. Muhammad v. Kelley, 2020 Ark.

61 (court not obligated to reach merits of habeas petition without the attached judgment).

Because Davis failed to establish the facial invalidity of the judgment or that the circuit court

lacked jurisdiction, there was no basis on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued.

Accordingly, the circuit court’s order denying his petition is affirmed.

Special Justice MILTON FINE joins.

BRONNI, J., not participating.

James Ray Davis, pro se appellant.

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