White v. Norris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 446
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-414
Opinion Delivered
LEWIS JAMES WHITE
Appellant
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Appellee
September 24, 2009
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM FOR
REPLY BRIEF AND FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF
[CIRCUIT COURT OF CHICOT
COUNTY, CV 2009-48, HON. ROBERT
BYNUM GIBSON, JR., JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Lewis James White, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed in the county in which he is incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-103 – 16-112-123 (Repl. 2006) that was denied. Appellant
lodged an appeal of the denial of the petition in this court and has now filed two motions in which
he seeks to include a supplemental addendum in his reply brief and for additional time to file his
reply brief. We need not consider the merits of appellant’s motions.
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. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam).
Here, it is clear that appellant cannot prevail because his petition failed to state grounds upon which
the writ could issue. We dismiss the appeal and the motions are therefore moot.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 446
The burden is on the petitioner in a habeas corpus petition to establish that the trial court
lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face; otherwise, there is no basis for
a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797
(2006) (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. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798-799.
Appellant based his grounds for the writ upon his allegations that the victim and other
witnesses had made inconsistent statements after his conviction that would show that the testimony
at trial was perjury. He also contended that the victim’s testimony was prejudicial and that his
confession should be invalid because of the victim’s perjury. None of the bases for relief alleged
in the petition supported either of the two grounds for granting the writ.
None of the claims presented was a challenge to the trial court’s jurisdiction, despite
appellant’s conclusory assertion to the contrary. Each of the claims in the petition presented a
challenge to the validity of the commitment order that would have required the circuit court to have
gone beyond the face of the commitment to resolve. Each of the claims was based upon allegations
concerning the evidence presented during the trial and the credibility of the witnesses. A habeas
corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case, and is not a substitute
for postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam).
Because the petition did not set forth grounds sufficient for the circuit court to grant the writ,
appellant cannot prevail on appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
-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.
