Dwight R. Houston v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MAY 9, 2002

DWIGHT R. HOUSTON

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

01-1248

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, NO. LCIV-2001-54-3, HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction in an unpublished opinion. Houston v. State, CACR 97-286 (Ark. App. Nov. 19, 1997).

Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101, et seq. (1987) in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County. The State filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (2001), which was granted by the circuit court. From that order comes this appeal.1

It is well settled that the burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus action to establish that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, thereis no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 577, 873 S.W.2d 524, 525 (1994). Moreover, appellant must make a "showing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (1987).

On appeal, appellant makes two claims: (1) that the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without giving him the opportunity to file a timely response to the State's motion to dismiss or to amend his petition; and (2) that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Neither of appellant's claims is cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding, as neither of the claims pertains to the validity of the commitment order or to the court's alleged lacked of jurisdiction. See Davis, supra. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying habeas relief.

Affirmed.

1 Appellant failed to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8) (2001) by including an addendum as part of his brief. See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System -- Amendments to Supreme Court Rules 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 345 Ark. Appx.__, __ S.W.3d __ (2001) (per curiam). Therefore, the State has provided a supplemental addendum.