Harold Edward Chism v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07-983 Opinion Delivered  February 14, 2008  v. PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, CR 91413, HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee  MOTION DENIED.  HAROLD EDWARD CHISM Appellant PER CURIAM  Appellant  Harold  Edward  Chism,  an  inmate  in  custody  of  the  Arkansas  Department  of  Correction in Jefferson County, filed a petition in Washington County Circuit Court seeking a writ  of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied and dismissed.  Appellant filed a motion in the circuit  court that sought reconsideration of the decision, which was also denied.  Appellant lodged an appeal  of the two orders in this court, and we dismissed the appeal.  Chism v. State, CR 07­983 (Ark. Jan.  10, 2008) (per curiam).  He now brings this motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal.  Appellant first contends that he was convicted prior to enactment of Act 1780 of 2001, and,  because the “old law” in effect prior to Act 1780 was applicable, he should file his petition in the trial  1  court.  Yet, we dismissed the appeal on the basis of the same law as was in effect prior to Act 1780.  As our opinion noted, any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is  properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless 1  As noted in our prior decision, appellant did not invoke Act 1780, under which a  petitioner who asserts actual innocence may make a motion for scientific testing of evidence.  the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001.  Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, ___ S.W.3d ___  (2007)  (per  curiam).  Under  what  appellant  references  as  the  “old  law,”  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  16­112­105 (1987), required, and still requires, that the writ be made returnable to the circuit court  of the county in which it may be served.  Well prior to enactment of Act 1780, this court held that  a circuit  court  does not  have jurisdiction to  release on a writ  of habeas corpus a prisoner not  in  custody in that  court’s  jurisdiction.  See  Johnson  v.  McClure,  228  Ark.  1081,  312  S.W.2d  347  (1958); State v. Ballard, 209 Ark. 397, 190 S.W.2d 522 (1945).  Appellant also argues that we may address his questions concerning jurisdiction at any time.  Questions of subject­matter jurisdiction are always open and cannot be waived.  State v. Boyette, 362  Ark. 27, 207 S.W.3d 488 (2005).  But, while we may have subject­matter jurisdiction on those issues,  we do not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of appellant’s petition, whether it raises questions  concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court or not, because the trial court did not have personal  jurisdiction to consider his petition for habeas relief.  Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction  to address the petition, this court also lacks jurisdiction to address an appeal.  See Lawrence v. City  of Texarkana, 364 Ark. 466, 221 S.W.3d 370 (2006).  As we indicated in our prior opinion, without  personal jurisdiction, the trial court cannot provide appellant relief, whether or not the petition has  merit.  Any remand would be pointless, and we may not reach the issues.  Appellant  has  stated  no  valid  reason  to  revisit  our  previous  decision  on  this  issue.    We  therefore deny his motion for reconsideration.  Motion denied. ­2­ 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.