Corelanius Toriano Phillips v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. 05-935

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CORELANIUS TORIANO PHILLIPS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

Opinion Delivered November 3, 2005

PRO SE MOTION TO SUBMIT A HANDWRITTEN BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, CV 2005-47, HON HARVEY LEE YATES, JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT

PER CURIAM

Corelanius Toriano Phillips was convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. We affirmed. Phillips v. State, 314 Ark. 531, 863 S.W.2d 309 (1993).

Seven years later Phillips filed a petition in this court asking that jurisdiction be reinvested in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition was denied. Phillips v. State, CR 93-642 (Ark. October 18, 2000) (per curiam).

Phillips then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court, which was denied by written order entered on June 22, 2005. Phillips brings this appeal. Appellant now seeks to file a handwritten brief.

We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if it were permitted to go forward because he failed to demonstrate a ground for the writ. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The motion is moot.

This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam);Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam).

Unless a petitioner can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990) (per curiam). The petitioner must plead either the facial invalidity or the lack of jurisdiction and make a "showing, by affidavit or other evidence, [of] probable cause to believe" he is illegally detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (Supp. 2001). See Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69. 781 S.W.2d 479 (1989). See also Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).

Appellant asserted in his petition for writ of habeas corpus that: (1) the commitment order issued upon his conviction was invalid on its face; (2) the trial court committed fundamental error and was without jurisdiction; (3) petitioner was denied due process and equal protection under the law; and (4) the sentence imposed on petitioner by the trial court was void and open to collateral attack.

The arguments asserted by appellant in his habeas petition were conclusory statements of law with no evidentiary facts to support his assertions and were insufficient to establish that the commitment was invalid on its face or that the trial court was without jurisdiction. Appellant clearly failed to meet his burden of showing by affidavit or other evidence of probable cause to believe that he was illegally detained.

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.