Cite as 2020 Ark. 79 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-916
Opinion Delivered: February 20, 2020 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HAYES APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE HOT V. SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, OF BRIEF TIME, TO SUPPLEMENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF THE RECORD, AND TO FILE CORRECTION SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM AND APPELLEE SUBSTITUTED BRIEF [NO. 30CV-18-166]
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS MOOT.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Steven Christopher Hayes appeals from an order denying his habeas-corpus petition
filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Hayes
contends the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea before
an ordered mental evaluation was filed. We hold that the circuit court retained jurisdiction
while the mental evaluation was pending; therefore, Hayes did not state a ground for the
writ. We affirm and find that his pro se motions for extension of time to file a reply brief,
to supplement the record, to supplement the addendum, and to file a substitute brief-in-
chief are moot. At the time of the trial court proceedings on his criminal charges, Hayes requested a
mental evaluation pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-205. (Supp. 2013).
The circuit court granted the request on November 10, 2014. However, on December 10,
2014, Hayes withdrew the request and pled guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual
assault. He was sentenced to 336 months of imprisonment on each count. On December
11, 2014, the forensic evaluation was submitted to the court with a finding that Hayes was
competent and fit to proceed. The sentencing order was filed December 16, 2014.
In April 2018, Hayes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was
denied by a written order. Hayes’s sole argument1 on appeal is that once the circuit court
ordered a mental evaluation in his criminal proceedings, the court lacked the “authority or
jurisdiction” to further proceed with his case until it received the examination report.
A decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly
erroneous. McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. 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 of conviction is
invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Id. Jurisdiction
1 Hayes also argues that he was coerced to plead guilty by detention-center supervisors and his trial attorney. These claims are raised for the first time on appeal, and this court has repeatedly stated that it will not address arguments, even constitutional arguments, raised for the first time on appeal. Rasul v. State, 2015 Ark. 118, 458 S.W.3d 722; see Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314, 530 S.W.3d 332.
2 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). A circuit court has subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Russell v.
Kelley, 2019 Ark. 278, 585 S.W.3d 658.
If a petitioner for habeas relief fails to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas
action, the petitioner fails to meet his or her burden of demonstrating a basis for the writ
to issue. McArthur, supra. A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to
retry his case. Johnson v. State, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Claims of error by the
circuit court that accepted a guilty plea are not within the purview of the remedy because
the writ will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred in a guilty-plea
proceeding. Id.; Barber v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 214, at 4–5. Unless a habeas petitioner can
demonstrate that a sentence is illegal on the face of the commitment order, there is no
showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence. See Edwards v.
Kelley, 2017 Ark. 254, 526 S.W.3d 825.
Hayes’s claim that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction is one that falls
within the scope of habeas. However, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter
jurisdiction of the criminal matter, and Hayes’s claim that the circuit court was divested of
jurisdiction due to the lack of a forensic report at the time of the proceeding fails. See
Mauppin v. State, 309 Ark. 235, 244, 831 S.W.2d 104, 108 (1992) (explaining that the
“circuit court never lost jurisdiction” during the periods of evaluation proceedings). An
error in a plea proceeding is not a jurisdictional defect. Johnson v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 230, 3 577 S.W.3d 710; Johnson, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Hayes’s argument does not
demonstrate that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to continue to preside
over his case. Hayes’s argument is instead a claim of trial error that does not affect the
circuit court’s jurisdiction.2 See Mitchell, 2018 Ark. 331.
Additionally, Hayes withdrew his motion for a mental evaluation. He did all of this
with assistance of counsel. The circuit court took measures to ensure that Hayes was able to
understand the proceedings prior to accepting Hayes’s guilty plea. Hayes’s acceptance of a
guilty plea is therefore not within the purview of the habeas remedy because the writ will
not be issued for a defendant to reconsider the decision to plead guilty. Crockett v. Kelley,
2020 Ark. 26. Inasmuch as Hayes failed to state a basis on which the writ could issue, the
circuit court hearing his habeas petition did not err by denying relief.
HART, J., dissents.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, dissenting. I dissent to this court deciding this
case on the merits without first deciding the motions that Mr. Hayes has filed. Due
2 Hayes additionally cites Sandoval-Vega to support his argument; however, that was an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel appeal under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. See Sandoval-Vega v. State, 2011 Ark. 393, 384 S.W.3d 508. In Sandoval-Vega, the defendant’s mental competency was raised at trial. Id. at 6, 384 S.W.3d at 513. The trial court ordered a mental evaluation, but the defendant pled guilty prior to the court receiving the report. Id. at 7–8, 384 S.W.3d at 514. We noted that the sentence could be considered illegal but “it was . . . not void unless appellant was not competent to enter his plea.” Sandoval-Vega, 2011 Ark. 393, at 8, 384 S.W.3d 508, 514. We also stated that the trial court did “not entirely lose subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id.
4 process requires that we dispose of all motions prior to taking this case under submission.
See Mister v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 187, 575 S.W.3d 410 (Hart, J., dissenting).
It is instructive to note the substance of Mr. Hayes’s motions. His motion to
supplement the record, filed on October 11, 2019, is a motion to include a certified
transcript of his plea hearing.3 Mr. Hayes’s motion to file a substituted brief and
addendum, filed on November 13, 2019, is grounded in his uncontested assertion that he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2020 Ark. 79 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-916
Opinion Delivered: February 20, 2020 STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HAYES APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE HOT V. SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, OF BRIEF TIME, TO SUPPLEMENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF THE RECORD, AND TO FILE CORRECTION SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM AND APPELLEE SUBSTITUTED BRIEF [NO. 30CV-18-166]
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS MOOT.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Steven Christopher Hayes appeals from an order denying his habeas-corpus petition
filed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2016). Hayes
contends the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea before
an ordered mental evaluation was filed. We hold that the circuit court retained jurisdiction
while the mental evaluation was pending; therefore, Hayes did not state a ground for the
writ. We affirm and find that his pro se motions for extension of time to file a reply brief,
to supplement the record, to supplement the addendum, and to file a substitute brief-in-
chief are moot. At the time of the trial court proceedings on his criminal charges, Hayes requested a
mental evaluation pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-205. (Supp. 2013).
The circuit court granted the request on November 10, 2014. However, on December 10,
2014, Hayes withdrew the request and pled guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual
assault. He was sentenced to 336 months of imprisonment on each count. On December
11, 2014, the forensic evaluation was submitted to the court with a finding that Hayes was
competent and fit to proceed. The sentencing order was filed December 16, 2014.
In April 2018, Hayes filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was
denied by a written order. Hayes’s sole argument1 on appeal is that once the circuit court
ordered a mental evaluation in his criminal proceedings, the court lacked the “authority or
jurisdiction” to further proceed with his case until it received the examination report.
A decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly
erroneous. McArthur v. State, 2019 Ark. 220, 577 S.W.3d 385. 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 of conviction is
invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Id. Jurisdiction
1 Hayes also argues that he was coerced to plead guilty by detention-center supervisors and his trial attorney. These claims are raised for the first time on appeal, and this court has repeatedly stated that it will not address arguments, even constitutional arguments, raised for the first time on appeal. Rasul v. State, 2015 Ark. 118, 458 S.W.3d 722; see Darrough v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 314, 530 S.W.3d 332.
2 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). A circuit court has subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Russell v.
Kelley, 2019 Ark. 278, 585 S.W.3d 658.
If a petitioner for habeas relief fails to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas
action, the petitioner fails to meet his or her burden of demonstrating a basis for the writ
to issue. McArthur, supra. A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to
retry his case. Johnson v. State, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Claims of error by the
circuit court that accepted a guilty plea are not within the purview of the remedy because
the writ will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred in a guilty-plea
proceeding. Id.; Barber v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 214, at 4–5. Unless a habeas petitioner can
demonstrate that a sentence is illegal on the face of the commitment order, there is no
showing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence. See Edwards v.
Kelley, 2017 Ark. 254, 526 S.W.3d 825.
Hayes’s claim that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction is one that falls
within the scope of habeas. However, the circuit court was vested with subject-matter
jurisdiction of the criminal matter, and Hayes’s claim that the circuit court was divested of
jurisdiction due to the lack of a forensic report at the time of the proceeding fails. See
Mauppin v. State, 309 Ark. 235, 244, 831 S.W.2d 104, 108 (1992) (explaining that the
“circuit court never lost jurisdiction” during the periods of evaluation proceedings). An
error in a plea proceeding is not a jurisdictional defect. Johnson v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 230, 3 577 S.W.3d 710; Johnson, 2018 Ark. 42, 538 S.W.3d 819. Hayes’s argument does not
demonstrate that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to continue to preside
over his case. Hayes’s argument is instead a claim of trial error that does not affect the
circuit court’s jurisdiction.2 See Mitchell, 2018 Ark. 331.
Additionally, Hayes withdrew his motion for a mental evaluation. He did all of this
with assistance of counsel. The circuit court took measures to ensure that Hayes was able to
understand the proceedings prior to accepting Hayes’s guilty plea. Hayes’s acceptance of a
guilty plea is therefore not within the purview of the habeas remedy because the writ will
not be issued for a defendant to reconsider the decision to plead guilty. Crockett v. Kelley,
2020 Ark. 26. Inasmuch as Hayes failed to state a basis on which the writ could issue, the
circuit court hearing his habeas petition did not err by denying relief.
HART, J., dissents.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, dissenting. I dissent to this court deciding this
case on the merits without first deciding the motions that Mr. Hayes has filed. Due
2 Hayes additionally cites Sandoval-Vega to support his argument; however, that was an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel appeal under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. See Sandoval-Vega v. State, 2011 Ark. 393, 384 S.W.3d 508. In Sandoval-Vega, the defendant’s mental competency was raised at trial. Id. at 6, 384 S.W.3d at 513. The trial court ordered a mental evaluation, but the defendant pled guilty prior to the court receiving the report. Id. at 7–8, 384 S.W.3d at 514. We noted that the sentence could be considered illegal but “it was . . . not void unless appellant was not competent to enter his plea.” Sandoval-Vega, 2011 Ark. 393, at 8, 384 S.W.3d 508, 514. We also stated that the trial court did “not entirely lose subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id.
4 process requires that we dispose of all motions prior to taking this case under submission.
See Mister v. Kelley, 2019 Ark. 187, 575 S.W.3d 410 (Hart, J., dissenting).
It is instructive to note the substance of Mr. Hayes’s motions. His motion to
supplement the record, filed on October 11, 2019, is a motion to include a certified
transcript of his plea hearing.3 Mr. Hayes’s motion to file a substituted brief and
addendum, filed on November 13, 2019, is grounded in his uncontested assertion that he
suffers from mental illness and recently changed medication that enables him to better
defend himself in his brief. In my view, Mr. Hayes has demonstrated compelling good
cause to grant his motion.
The majority also errs in applying its unlawfully narrowed conception of the
cognizable grounds for habeas corpus. The majority again asserts that the great writ can
only issue when “when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit
court lacks jurisdiction over the cause.” However, in Mr. Hayes’s case, his petition actually
asserts that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea. Mr. Hayes is
correct.
On November 10, 2014, the Saline County Circuit Court entered an order for a
criminal responsibility examination. The order recited that Mr. Hayes had properly filed
notice of his intent to “rely on the defense of mental disease or defect.” Prior to its repeal
and replacement by Act 472 of 2017, a request by a criminal defendant for a mental
3 Interestingly, the transcript reflects that the so-called “factual basis” for first-degree sexual assault was not established by Mr. Hayes’s allocution.
5 evaluation was governed by Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-305. It stated in
pertinent part:
5-2-305. Mental health examination of defendant.
(a)(1) Subject to the provisions of §§ 5-2-304 and 5-2-311, the court shall immediately suspend any further proceedings in a prosecution if: (A)(i) A defendant charged in circuit court files notice that he or she intends to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect.
Accordingly, under section 5-2-305, the circuit court was required to “immediately
suspend any further proceedings.” I am mindful––only because I read the certified
transcript that the majority refused to make part of the record––that Mr. Hayes’s trial
counsel went back to court on December 10, 2014. However, as the majority notes, that
was before the mental examination was complete. Under the plain wording of section 5-2-
305, the circuit court did not have the authority to conduct the plea hearing on December
10, 2014. It is so well settled as to be axiomatic that jurisdiction is the power or authority
of the court to act. Ward v. Hutchinson, 2018 Ark. 270, 555 S.W.3d 866. The circuit court
simply did not have the power or authority to conduct a proceeding prior to the return of
the mental evaluation. Thus, even under the majority’s unlawfully too-narrow conception
of the basis for habeas relief, the circuit court erred in denying Mr. Hayes’s habeas petition.
I dissent.
Steven Christopher Hayes, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.