Jackie Lee Williams v. Larry Norris

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. 03-1401

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JACKIE LEE WILLIAMS

APPELLANT

v.

LARRY NORRIS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered March 31, 2005

PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CV 2003-522-1-5, HON. FRED D. DAVIS, III, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Jackie Lee Williams is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction serving a sentence for three counts of rape. On July 15, 2003, Williams filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus in Jefferson County Circuit Court. The trial court denied the petition, and this appeal followed.

Williams was initially charged with three counts of rape. The three counts were severed for trial. Williams was found guilty on each count and sentence to twenty-five years on each count with the sentences to run consecutively. Each conviction was appealed and affirmed. Williams previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting all three commitment orders were invalid and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on two counts because the orders violated the double jeopardy clause. The trial court denied that petition, and this court affirmed in Williams v. Norris, CR 98-1027, slip op. at 2000 WL 86599 (Ark. Jan. 20, 2000). In that opinion, we noted that Williams had failed to abstract the judgments, and his failure to move to supplement or substitute his abstract prior to submission for decision was fatal to his appeal.

Once again, appellant has failed to provide an adequate abstract so as to comply with our briefing rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2. His brief consists of a two page argument and an Addendum. We are not affording an opportunity to cure the deficiencies because it is clear from our review of appellant's claims that he could not prevail on appeal. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Booth v. State, 353 Ark. 119, 110 S.W.3d 759 (2003).

The basis of appellant's argument, both in his petition and in his brief on appeal, rests upon the indication on the commitment order that his offense was committed on April 1, 1994, a date appellant asserts he was confined under arrest. Clearly, challenges to the evidence such as alibis should be raised at trial. The trial court found the petition failed to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief could issue. We agree.

A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 577, 873 S.W.2d 524, 525 (1994). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). A writ of habeas corpus will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. The remedy in such a case is direct appeal. Id. In fact, the Court of Appeals indicated in its decision on this count that the actual dates alleged at trial for the rape were on or about April 1, 1994 through on or about April 30, 1994, and appellant did challenge those dates with evidence of incarceration as an alibi. Any inaccuracy or incomplete notation of the date of the offense on the judgment and commitment order was not sufficient to render it invalid. Appellant asserts this alleged mistake caused the court to lack jurisdiction as well, but offers neither persuasive argument or authority to support the contention. This court does not consider an argument that presents no citation to authority or convincing argument. Kelly v. State, 350 Ark. 238, 241, 85 S.W.3d 893, 895 (2002). Because the appellant has failed to raise a claim upon which a writ of habeas corpus could issue, we affirm the order of the trial court denying his petition.

Affirmed.