Douthitt v. Hobbs
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant Ralph Douthitt was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape, twenty-nine counts of violation of a minor, and twenty-nine counts of incest. Appellant later filed a motion for permission to file a belated petition for postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convince the circuit court to suppress evidence seized during a search of Appellant's garage. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that Appellant's ineffective-assistance argument was not cognizable in a habeas petition.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 416 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 10-912 Opinion Delivered RALPH DOUTHITT APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE October 6, 2011 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE L IN C O L N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT, LCV 2010-34, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM Appellant Ralph Douthitt was convicted on October 25, 1995, by an Independence County jury of three counts of rape, twenty-nine counts of violation of a minor, and twentynine counts of incest. He was sentenced to 174 years imprisonment. This court affirmed. Douthitt v. State, 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996). On October 2, 1997, appellant filed in the trial court a motion for permission to file a belated petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2005). The circuit court denied that motion, and, although appellant filed a notice of appeal from the decision, he failed to timely file the record with the clerk of this court. Thereafter, he filed a motion for rule on clerk, and we denied the motion and dismissed the appeal. Douthitt v. State, CR98-272 (Ark. Apr. 16, 1998) (unpublished per curiam). On March 23, 2010, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-101 (Repl. 2006) in Lincoln County Circuit Cite as 2011 Ark. 416 Court, the county in which he was held in custody. In his petition, he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convince the circuit court to suppress evidence seized during a search of appellant s garage. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant brings this appeal. A circuit court s denial of postconviction relief will not be reversed unless the court s findings are clearly erroneous. Smith v. State, 2010 Ark. 137, ___ S.W.3d ____ (per curiam). 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). Under our statute, a petitioner who does not allege his actual innocence1 must plead either the facial invalidity of the judgment or the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and make a showing by affidavit or other evidence [of] probable cause to believe that he is illegally detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798 99; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103(a)(1). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case and is not a substitute for direct appeal or a timely 1 Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-112-103(a)(2), 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 sections 16-112-201 to -208. Appellant has filed two petitions for relief pursuant to Act 1780, both of which have been denied in circuit court and dismissed on appeal by this court. Douthitt v. State, CR 07527 (Ark. Dec. 13, 2007) (unpublished per curiam); Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, 237 S.W.3d 76 (2006) (per curiam). Both petitions filed pursuant to Act 1780 advanced the same argument that appellant makes in his current habeas petition that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain the suppression of evidence. 2 Cite as 2011 Ark. 416 petition for postconviction relief. Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam); Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 13 S.W.3d 143 (2000) (per curiam). A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. Wilkins v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 169 (per curiam). Rather, allegations concerning counsel s effectiveness are properly raised in a timely petition pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). Id. In his most recent petition, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to successfully argue and obtain a ruling that evidence seized by law enforcement during a search of his home should have been suppressed. As explained in Wilkins, appellant s ineffective-assistance argument is not cognizable in a habeas petition. Affirmed. 3
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.
