Larry Burks v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Division of Correction

2024 Ark. 80

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: May 9, 2024
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2024 Ark. 80 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-23-720

Opinion Delivered: May 9, 2024 LARRY BURKS APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 40CV-23-81]

DEXTER PAYNE, DIRECTOR, HONORABLE JODI RAINES ARKANSAS DIVISION OF DENNIS, JUDGE CORRECTION APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice

Appellant Larry Burks appeals from the denial and dismissal of his pro se petition for

writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl.

2016) in Lincoln County, which is the county where he is incarcerated. The circuit court

found that Burks failed to demonstrate that he is being illegally detained and denied and

dismissed the petition. We affirm.

In his petition, Burks alleged that the judgment reflecting his conviction for one

count of rape is illegal. He claims this is so due to inconsistencies in the judgment and

commitment order as well as inconsistencies in the docket entries in the trial court and in

this court. The alleged inconsistences primarily consist of discrepancies in the offense date

related to the one count of rape for which he was convicted.

I. Background Burks was originally charged with four counts of rape that, according to the

information, were committed on February 8 and 9, 2007. Three of the rape counts were

dismissed, and Burks was tried and convicted by a Pulaski County jury of one count of rape

and was sentenced to 360 months’—or 30 years’—imprisonment in the Arkansas Division

of Correction (ADC). The judgment of conviction was entered on March 19, 2008, and

the date of the offense was listed as February 9, 2007. After his conviction, Burks’s trial

counsel withdrew from representation, and due to a failure by the trial court to appoint

appellate counsel, Burks filed a petition for a belated appeal five years from the date of the

judgment, and this court denied it. Burks subsequently filed a petition for habeas relief in

federal court, which was granted by the district court. The grant of federal habeas relief was

subsequently reversed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Burks v. Kelley, 881 F.3d

663 (8th Cir. 2018).

II. Standard of Review

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. To the extent that the circuit court’s order is one that addresses Burks’s

entitlement to proceed as a pauper, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Randle v.

State, 2022 Ark. 116, 644 S.W.3d 413. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts

arbitrarily or groundlessly. Id.

III. Writ of Habeas Corpus

2 A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment and commitment order is invalid

on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Finney v. Kelley, 2020

Ark. 145, 598 S.W.3d 26. 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 also has jurisdiction 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. Fuller/Akbar v. Payne, 2021 Ark. 155,

628 S.W.3d 366.

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 circuit

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. Id. (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 16-

112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016)). 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. In habeas

proceedings, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. See

Hobbs v. Turner, 2014 Ark. 19, 431 S.W.3d 283.

IV. Claims for Relief

3 Burks contended in his petition filed in the circuit court and in his arguments on

appeal that he is entitled to habeas relief because there are contradictions between what

appears on the face of the judgment and commitment order and information set out in

certain “certified” and CourtConnect docket entries. According to Burks, there is

incompatible information recorded in the circuit court’s certified docket, the circuit court’s

CourtConnect docket number 60CR-07-1193, and the Supreme Court’s CourtConnect

docket number CR-14-202. Specifically, Burks claims that these records generated by

clerks of the courts contain conflicting offense dates for the rapes for which he was charged

and also for the rape for which he was convicted. He further contends that the circuit

court’s certified docket entry reflects that he was convicted of two counts of rape rather

than one count of rape. Finally, Burks contends that, according to the circuit court’s

certified docket, the count of rape with an offense date of February 9, 2007, had been

dismissed.

The judgment and commitment order contained in the record establishes that Burks

was convicted by a jury of one count of rape, the rape took place on February 9, 2007, and

the jury sentenced Burks to 360 months’ imprisonment for the offense. Burks does not

argue that the judgment entered is illegal on its face or that the sentence exceeds the

maximum for the offense. Rape is a Class Y felony that carries a maximum penalty of forty

years to life imprisonment. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401 (Repl. 2006); Ark. Code Ann.

§ 5-14-103 (Repl. 2006). Finally, Burks does not challenge the subject-matter jurisdiction

of the trial court to convict and sentence him.

4 Docket entries recorded by various court clerks have no bearing on the facial legality

of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court that entered it. See Anderson v. Kelley,

2020 Ark. 197, 600 S.W.3d 544. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err when it denied

and dismissed Burks’s petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Affirmed.

Larry Burks, pro se appellant.

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