Simpson v. Hobbs (Per Curiam)
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 Barry Simpson entered a plea of guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because the court violated procedural rules when the plea was taken. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted because he raised no argument that called into question the court's jurisdiction to accept his plea of guilty and enter a judgment, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 346 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 11-422 Opinion Delivered BARRY LYNN SIMPSON APPELLANT V. September 8, 2011 APPELLANT S PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TO FILE NONCONFORMING BRIEF [LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, LCV 2010-149, HO N. JO DI R AIN ES DENNIS, JUDGE] RAY HOBBS APPELLEE APPEAL MOOT. D IS M IS S E D ; M O T IO N PER CURIAM In 1995, appellant Barry Lynn Simpson entered a plea of guilty to murder in the first degree in the Saline County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, appellant filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006). In the petition, appellant argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case because the court failed to abide by the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.1 to 24.8 (1995) when taking the plea. The petition was denied, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. Now before us is appellant s motion seeking leave to file a brief that does not conform to our rules. We need not address the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that Cite as 2011 Ark. 346 the appellant could not prevail. Chappell v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 220 (per curiam); Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 35 (per curiam); McCullough v. State, 2010 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Moore v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 380 (per curiam); Washington v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 104 (per curiam); Edwards v. State, 2010 Ark. 85 (per curiam); Pineda v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 471 (per curiam). Appellant failed to demonstrate in his petition that the writ was warranted. The burden is on the petitioner in a petition for writ of habeas corpus 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. Daniels v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 192 (per curiam) (citing Jackson v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 49, ___ S.W.3d ___); Moore, 2010 Ark. 380; Young v. Norris, 365 Ark. 219, 226 S.W.3d 797 (2006) (per curiam). Under our statute, a petitioner 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. Young, 365 Ark. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798 99; Ark. Code Ann. § 16112-103(a)(1). Appellant s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his case on the ground that the court violated procedural rules when the plea was taken did not establish a lack of jurisdiction. This court has specifically held that claims concerning whether a petitioner s plea proceedings were in compliance with Rule 24 are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Lumley v. State, 2011 Ark. 365 (per curiam); see also Friend v. Norris, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (per curiam). Appellant did not contend that his sentence was outside the statutory range for the offense, but, even where such a claim is made, the claim must be substantiated in order to warrant relief. Lumley, 2011 Ark. 365; see also Washington v. Norris, -2- Cite as 2011 Ark. 346 2010 Ark. 104 (per curiam). Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Anderson, 2011 Ark. 35; Baker v. Norris, 369 Ark. 405, 255 S.W.3d 466 (2007). A circuit court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Id. Appellant raised no argument that called into question the court s jurisdiction to accept his plea of guilty and enter a judgment. See Johnson v. Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 459 (per curiam). In circumstances such as appellant s, where an appellant who sought a writ of habeas corpus waived his right to a jury trial and accepted a negotiated plea to the sentence, we do not look beyond the permitted statutory range of punishment in determining whether the sentence in the judgment was invalid. Lumley, 2011 Ark. 365; Anderson v. Norris, 370 Ark. 110, 257 S.W.3d 540 (2007) (per curiam). Appellant failed to state probable cause in the petition as required by the statute. Because the petition did not state a basis to warrant issuance of the writ, the circuit court did not err in denying the relief sought Appeal dismissed; motion moot. -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.
