Barry Stinnett v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. 04-1103

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

BARRY STINNETT

Appellant

v.

LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

Appellee

Opinion Delivered June 23, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CV 2004-116-1, HONORABLE BERLIN C. JONES, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and two counts of delivery of cocaine. He was sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment for the possession count and given a suspended imposition of sentence for 120 months on each of the delivery counts. On October 9, 2000, appellant was convicted of criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was given a suspended imposition of sentence for 180 months on each of those offenses. At the same time, his suspended imposition of sentence for delivery of cocaine was revoked, and he was sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment. Appellant did not appeal his conviction or revocation.

Appellant subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, where he is incarcerated. The trial court held that the claims raised by appellant were not sufficient to demonstrate that the commitment was invalid or that the court lacked jurisdiction, and denied appellant's petition. From that order comes this appeal.

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). In his petition, appellant argued that his original sentence was imposed illegally because the nature of the suspended imposition of sentence was not fully explained to him. According to appellant, he was not made aware of the consequences of a parole violation on a suspended sentence; therefore, the sentence was illegal on its face. Appellant also claimed that the court failed to state in open court that the two suspended sentences were to run consecutively to the five-year term. Finally, appellant claimed that the 360-month sentence imposed at his revocation was illegal on its face because in its original proceedings, the trial court failed to relate to appellant the consequences of violating a suspended imposition of sentence.

We hold that none of appellant's claims was sufficient to establish that the commitment was invalid on its face or that the trial court was without jurisdiction. Because appellant failed to state grounds upon which habeas relief can be granted, the trial court did not err in denying relief.

On appeal, appellant raises the additional claim that the trial court lacked the authority to suspend imprisonment for a Class "Y" felony. However, this claim was not raised in appellant's original habeas petition, and we will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21, 33, 43 S.W.3d 148, 155 (2001).

Affirmed.