Reginald Smith v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

DECEMBER 6, 2001

REGINALD SMITH

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

00-743

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,

NO. CIV 99-642

HONORABLE FRED DAVIS,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Reginald Smith, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in the Arkansas Department of Correction. We affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence in Smith v. State, 308 Ark. 603, 826 S.W.2d 256 (1992). On October 1, 1999, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-101 (1987). The circuit court denied appellant's petition for failure to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief could be issued. Appellant has appealed that decision, and we affirm.

A prisoner challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction pursuant to which he is incarcerated may obtain a writ of habeas corpus only by showing that the judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or by showing that the circuit court caused the judgment to be entered lacked jurisdiction. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-101 (1987); Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991); Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 484 (1990).

Appellant's petition sets forth the following arguments: 1) petitioner was subjected to anambiguous statute without the state resolving the ambiguity in favor of the petitioner; 2) the trial court erred in denying petitioner's motion for mistrial; 3) petitioner is actually innocent of first degree murder and; 4) petitioner was denied equal protection and due process of the laws because he was denied a bifurcated trial. None of these claims demonstrates that the committing court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face. A writ of habeas corpus will not issue to correct errors or irregularities which may have occurred at trial. McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (1992). Thus, we cannot say that the trial court's decision is clearly erroneous. Because of our finding, appellant's remaining points on appeal are moot.

Affirmed.

Imber, J., not participating.