Justia.com Opinion Summary: Appellant Dustin Vickers was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the county in which he was incarcerated, asserting that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that the judgment was invalid on its face. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant fell short of establishing that the trial court in his case lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, and therefore, there was no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue.
Receive FREE Daily Opinion Summaries by Email Download as PDF
Loading PDF...
<![CDATA[
Cite as 2012 Ark. 160
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
09-1274
Opinion Delivered
April 12, 2012
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CV 2009598, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS,
JUDGE]
DUSTIN VICKERS
APPELLANT
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Dustin Vickers appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for writ
of habeas corpus. In 1992, Vickers was convicted of first-degree murder and was sentenced to
life imprisonment. He appealed his conviction and sentence, and this court affirmed. Vickers
v. State, 313 Ark. 64, 852 S.W.2d 787 (1993). He subsequently filed a petition for postconviction
relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (1992); his petition was denied, and upon
appeal to this court, we affirmed the denial of relief. Vickers v. State, 320 Ark. 437, 898 S.W.2d
26 (1995). In 2009, appellant filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of
the county in which he was incarcerated, and the circuit court denied it. He now brings this
appeal from the circuit court’s order. We affirm.
We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court’s findings are
clearly erroneous. Henson v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 363 (per curiam). A finding is clearly erroneous
when, although there was evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire
Cite as 2012 Ark. 160
evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.
The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus 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. Daniels v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark.
192 (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence1 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. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006); Tryon v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 76, at 2 (per
curiam).
In his petition, appellant asserted that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and that the
judgment was invalid on its face. Specifically, appellant claimed that first-degree murder
committed with the purpose of causing the death of another person and first-degree murder
committed with the purpose of causing the death of a particular person are two separate and
distinct crimes, which were required to be charged individually and with particularity. He
contended that because he was charged with the former, but was convicted of the latter, he was
convicted of a crime with which he was never charged. It is on this basis that appellant claimed
habeas relief was proper.
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in
controversy. Wilkins v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 169 (per curiam). A circuit court has subject-matter
1
A petitioner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus and alleges actual innocence must do
so in accordance with Act 1780 of 2001, codified as Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-201
to –208 (Repl. 2006). Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(2).
2
Cite as 2012 Ark. 160
jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Id. Here, the
circuit court clearly had jurisdiction over appellant’s case in which he was charged with firstdegree murder, a violation of a criminal statute. But, in addition, this court has previously
observed, in one of appellant’s prior appeals, that the first-degree murder statute is broad enough
to cover both the situation “in which a person intends to kill someone and does so and the
situation in which a person intends to kill a particular person and kills someone else instead,”
which are the “two situations in which a purposeful killing might occur.” Vickers, 313 Ark. at
69, 852 S.W.2d at 790. Vickers was charged with first-degree murder and was convicted of firstdegree murder. Accordingly, Vickers’s claim for habeas relief fails.
Because Vickers fell short of establishing that the trial court in his case lacked jurisdiction
or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there was no basis for a finding that a writ of
habeas corpus should issue. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s denial of habeas relief.
Affirmed.
3
]]>
