Hooten v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-181
Opinion Delivered
EDWARD JOE HOOTEN
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
May 21, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF HOT
SPRING COUNTY, CV 2008-300, HON.
PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Edward Joe Hooten, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-101
– 16-112-123 (Repl. 2006) in Hot Spring County Circuit Court. The circuit court dismissed the
petition and appellant lodged an appeal of the order in this court. Appellant now has filed a motion
requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief. Because it is clear that appellant cannot
succeed on appeal, we dismiss the appeal and the motion is moot.
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 failed to state a claim in his petition that was cognizable in a habeas
proceeding.
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 798-799.1 Appellant did not plead facts in the petition
concerning unlawful detention or challenge the judgment under which he was incarcerated. Rather
appellant sought review of a prison disciplinary proceeding against him, seeking to have the
disciplinary action overturned.
Although appellant refers to the action on the disciplinary proceeding as a “conviction,” the
disciplinary proceeding is an administrative proceeding by the Arkansas Department of Correction
and not a criminal proceeding. Appellant did not challenge his judgment or the commitment under
which he is detained and the claims asserted were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. The circuit
court correctly dismissed the petition, and we dismiss the appeal. Because the appeal is dismissed,
appellant’s motion for extension of time is moot.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
1
Appellant, in his petition, did not allege actual innocence of the charges under which he was
detained. A petitioner who seeks a writ of habeas corpus and alleges actual innocence must do so in
accordance with Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112201 – 16-112-208 (Repl. 2006). Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (Repl. 2006).
-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.
