Kozal v. Board of Correction

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Kozal v. Board of Correction

840 S.W.2d 164, 310 Ark. 648, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 611

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 19, 1992

Docket92-1093

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 840 S.W.2d 164 (Kozal v. Board of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kozal v. Board of Correction, 840 S.W.2d 164, 310 Ark. 648, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 611 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Patricia Kozal seeks review of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus in this petition for a writ of certiorari. Her original complaint alleged that Department of Correction authorities were not giving her proper credit for “good time” she has earned and will earn during her incarceration. As a result of the improper computation she alleges she will be required to serve a longer term than is lawful. She first filed her complaint in the Federal Court which stayed proceedings pending exhaustion of State remedies. She then filed a petition seeking the habeas corpus writ in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. This petition was denied and forms the basis for review.

The State argues the writ should be denied as Ms. Kozal has an adequate remedy by way of a direct appeal. We cannot agree that denial of habeas corpus may adequately be addressed only by way of a direct appeal. The proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990); Taylor v. Moore, 99 Ark. 412, 138 S.W. 634 (1911). It is clear, however, that the habeas corpus writ is granted only when a person is detained without lawful authority or imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail. This is not such a case, and thus the writ of certiorari must be denied. There may be other ways of addressing the relief sought here, such as, for example, by declaratory judgment, but they are not before us.

Petition denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Patricia Kozal seeks review of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus in this petition for a writ of certiorari. Her original complaint alleged that Department of Correction authorities were not giving her proper credit for “good time” she has earned and will earn during her incarceration. As a result of the improper computation she alleges she will be required to serve a longer term than is lawful. She first filed her complaint in the Federal Court which stayed proceedings pending exhaustion of State remedies. She then filed a petition seeking the habeas corpus writ in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. This petition was denied and forms the basis for review.

The State argues the writ should be denied as Ms. Kozal has an adequate remedy by way of a direct appeal. We cannot agree that denial of habeas corpus may adequately be addressed only by way of a direct appeal. The proper method of bringing up proceedings on habeas corpus for review is by means of a writ of certiorari. City of Clinton v. Jones, 302 Ark. 109, 787 S.W.2d 242 (1990); Taylor v. Moore, 99 Ark. 412, 138 S.W. 634 (1911). It is clear, however, that the habeas corpus writ is granted only when a person is detained without lawful authority or imprisoned when by law he or she is entitled to bail. This is not such a case, and thus the writ of certiorari must be denied. There may be other ways of addressing the relief sought here, such as, for example, by declaratory judgment, but they are not before us.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 S.W.2d 164, 310 Ark. 648, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kozal-v-board-of-correction-ark-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack