Hutcherson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 77
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
10-1222
Opinion Delivered
WILLIE HUTCHERSON
Appellant
v.
February 17, 2011
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF [LEE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CV 2010139, HON. RICHARD PROCTOR,
JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
On October 21, 2010, appellant Willie Hutcherson filed in the circuit court in the county
where he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated §§ 16-112-101 to –123 (Repl. 2006). The petition was denied, and appellant lodged
an appeal here. He filed his brief-in-chief and now seeks by pro se motion leave to file a
supplemental brief.
We need not address the merits of the motion as it is clear from the record that appellant
could not prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. An
appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ
of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could
not prevail. Johnson v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 459 (per curiam); Washington v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 104 (per
curiam); Edwards v. State, 2010 Ark. 85 (per curiam); Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 (per curiam);
Cite as 2011 Ark. 77
Pineda v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 471 (per curiam).
Appellant failed to establish in his petition that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. The
burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus petition to establish that the trial 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. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797
(2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence 1
must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court
and make a “showing by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe” that he is
illegally detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798–99; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1).
In 2000, appellant was found guilty by a jury of four counts of aggravated robbery, three
counts of misdemeanor theft of property, and one count of felony theft of property. He was
sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 2880 months’ imprisonment, which
included 60 months’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a felon. The Arkansas Court
of Appeals affirmed. Hutcherson v. State, 74 Ark. App. 72, 47 S.W.3d 267 (2001).
Appellant contended in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that he should have been
found guilty of only one aggravated robbery because the offenses were a continuing course of
conduct. The claim is not one that calls into question the court’s jurisdiction to try the accused.
1
A petitioner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus and alleges actual innocence must do so
in accordance with Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as Arkansas Code Annotated
§§ 16-112-201 to –208 (Repl. 2006). Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(2) (Repl. 2006).
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 77
Appellant offered nothing to demonstrate that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over
him or jurisdiction over the subject matter. A court with personal and subject-matter jurisdiction
over the defendant in a criminal proceeding has authority to render judgment. Hutcherson v. State,
2010 Ark. 368 (per curiam) (citing Johnson v. State, 298 Ark. 479, 769 S.W.2d 3 (1989)). Likewise,
appellant offered no substantiation for a contention that the judgment was illegal on its face or
excessive. Accordingly, there was no ground stated to issue the writ.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
-3-
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.
