Bradford v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant Roger Bradford filed three pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus, (1) challenging his 1982 convictions for three counts of deliver of a controlled substance, his 1990 conviction for second-degree escape, and his 1994 conviction for second-degree escape, and (2) claiming that those convictions were used to enhance a subsequent sentence. The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's challenge to his convictions was moot as the sentences he received for those convictions had expired and any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 359 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-970 Opinion Delivered ROGER BRADFORD APPELLANT September 15, 2011 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CV 2009-99], HON. RICHARD L. PROCTOR, JUDGE V. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM On June 5, 2009, appellant Roger Bradford filed three pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the county in which he was incarcerated. In the first petition, he challenged his 1982 convictions for three counts of delivery of a controlled substance for which he was sentenced to a total of ten years in prison. In the second petition, appellant contested his 1990 conviction for second-degree escape for which he was sentenced to a term of six years in prison. Lastly, he challenged his 1994 conviction for second-degree escape for which he received a sentence of fifteen years in prison.1 The circuit court denied the petitions without a hearing, and appellant now appeals the circuit court s decision. Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence 2 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the circuit court and 1 Appellant is currently serving a sentence of life in prison for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See Bradford v. State, 328 Ark. 701, 947 S.W.2d 1 (1997). 2 A petitioner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus and alleges actual innocence must do so in accordance with Act 1780 of 2001, which is codified as Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006). Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(2). Cite as 2011 Ark. 359 make a showing by affidavit or other evidence [of] probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. Wilkins v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 169 (per curiam); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(2)(1) (Repl. 2006). The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus to establish that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Jackson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 49, ___ S.W.3d ___. With regard to these three convictions, appellant has failed to demonstrate that he is being illegally detained, as the sentences he received for these convictions have long since expired. Where the petitioner is not incarcerated as a direct result of his conviction when he files his habeas-corpus petition, the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief. State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007); Anderson v. State, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403 (2003); Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam). Under the circumstances, appellant s challenge to those convictions is moot, as any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon an existing legal controversy. Anderson, 352 Ark. 36, 98 S.W.3d 403. This is so, even though appellant claims that those convictions were used to enhance a subsequent sentence. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court s decision to deny appellant s petition. Affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
