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.