Arthur Blount v. Grant Harris, Warden

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

June 17, 2004

ARTHUR BLOUNT

Appellant

v.

GRANT HARRIS, WARDEN

Appellee

04-104

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CV 2003-445-5, HON. FRED DAVIS, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

                                                                                                               Per Curiam

In 1999, Arthur Blount entered a plea of guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to serve an aggregate sentence of sixty-years' imprisonment. In 2003, Blount filed in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petition was denied, and Blount appeals to this court. We dismissed the appeal because it was clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal. Blount v. Harris, 04-104 (Ark. April 22, 2004) (per curiam). Now before us is appellant's motion for reconsideration.

The motion, which reiterates the arguments raised in the lower court, is denied. As we said in the original decision, unless a petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. 16-112-103 (1987). See Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 478 (1989), see also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark.

321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991). We concluded that the allegation raised by appellant in the habeaspetition was not sufficient to demonstrate that the commitment was invalid or that the court lacked jurisdiction. There is nothing in the motion for reconsideration that warrants revisiting the matter.

Motion denied.