Zayzhon Thompson v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

2021 Ark. 197

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: October 28, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. 197 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-21-168

Opinion Delivered: October 28, 2021 ZAYZHON THOMPSON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 40CV-20-143]

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

ROBIN F. WYNNE, Associate Justice

Appellant Zayzhon Thompson appeals the dismissal of his pro se petition for writ of

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

in the Lincoln County Circuit Court, which is in the county where he is incarcerated.

Thompson contended in the habeas petition that his judgment of conviction is void because

the trial judge failed to sign the sentencing order in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court

Administrative Order No. 8. The circuit court dismissed his claim for habeas relief, finding

that Thompson’s sentencing order was electronically signed and filed in compliance with

Administrative Order No. 21. We affirm.

I. Background

A Pulaski County jury convicted Thompson and his codefendant, Tearbrey

Anderson, of six felony offenses consisting of two counts of aggravated residential burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property, two counts of terroristic

threatening, and six counts of the firearm enhancement. See Arkansas Code Annotated

section 16-90-120 (Repl. 2011). Thompson’s sentences for each count were imposed to run

concurrently for an aggregate term of 240 months’ imprisonment.1 The Arkansas Court of

Appeals affirmed. Anderson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 300.

II. Grounds for Issuance of the Writ

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 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

1 The sentencing order reflects that the firearm-enhancement sentences were imposed to run consecutively to the sentences for each underlying felony count, but the aggregate sentences for the separate felony counts plus the firearm enhancements were imposed to run concurrently.

2 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.

III. 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.

IV. Claims for Relief

In the petition filed in the circuit court and in his argument on appeal, Thompson

claims that the sentencing order is invalid because the order does not bear the signature of

the trial judge. The circuit court found that Thompson’s sentencing order was properly

signed and filed by the trial judge in compliance with Administrative Order No. 21, which

outlines the procedures for electronic filing. On appeal, Thompson argues that the trial judge

failed to follow the proper procedures for electronic signing and filing under Administrative

Order No. 21. However, Thompson argued below that the trial judge had failed to follow

the procedures outlined in Administrative Order No. 8, and Thompson did not raise issues

regarding the procedures required under Administrative Order No. 21. An appellant is

3 limited to the scope and nature of his arguments below and cannot raise new arguments on

appeal. Rayburn v. State, 2021 Ark. 98, 622 S.W.3d 155. In any event, a failure to sign a

commitment order does not implicate the facial validity of either a trial court’s judgment or

its jurisdiction and instead constitutes an assertion of trial error that is not cognizable in

habeas proceedings. Hall v. Kelley, 2020 Ark. 123, 596 S.W.3d 1.

Affirmed.

Zayzhon Thompson, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.