Robertson 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 Patrick Robertson, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed in circuit court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the writ should issue on the ground that the ADC had misclassified him as a third-time offender and therefore miscalculated his parole eligibility date. The circuit court denied the petition, and Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion seeking a copy or use of the record lodged in the appeal to prepare his brief-in-chief. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground for a writ of habeas corpus because a claim concerning the ADC's determination of parole eligibility was not grounds for a writ of habeas corpus and Appellant did not raise an issue that called into question the sentencing court's jurisdiction or the facial validity of his commitment.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 313
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
11-532
Opinion Delivered
PATRICK ROBERTSON
Appellant
v.
RAY HOBBS
Appellee
July 27, 2011
APPELLANT’S PRO SE MOTION
FOR COPY OR USE OF
TRANSCRIPT [LINCOLN COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, LCV 2011-16,
HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS,
JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
On February 7, 2011, appellant Patrick Robertson, an inmate of the Arkansas
Department of Correction (ADC) by virtue of multiple criminal judgments, filed in the circuit
court in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006) seeking his
release. He contended in the petition that the writ should issue on the ground that the ADC
had misclassified him as a third-time offender, and, therefore, miscalculated his parole
eligibility date.1
The petition was denied, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. Now before us
is appellant’s motion seeking a copy, or use, of the record lodged in the appeal to prepare his
1
Appellant raised the same claim in a petition for writ of mandamus filed against
officials of the ADC in 2003. That petition was denied. On appeal, this court affirmed on the
basis that appellant had failed to produce a record establishing that he had a legal right to a
petition for writ of mandamus. Robertson v. Norris, 360 Ark. 597, 203 S.W.3d 82 (2005).
Cite as 2011 Ark. 313
brief-in-chief. 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 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 did not contend that any court in which a judgment of conviction was
entered against him lacked jurisdiction or that any commitment entered was illegal on its face.
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 313
A claim concerning the ADC’s determination of parole eligibility is not grounds for a writ of
habeas corpus. Blevins v. Norris, 291 Ark. 70, 722 S.W.2d 573 (1987) (holding that a petition
for writ of habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge the calculation of parole
eligibility). As appellant did not raise an issue that called into question the sentencing court’s
jurisdiction or the facial validity of the commitment in his cases, he did not state a ground for
a writ of habeas corpus. Bargo v. Lockhart, 279 Ark. 180, 650 S.W.2d 227 (1983); see also
Wingfield v. State, 2009 Ark. 499 (per curiam) (holding constitutional challenges to parole
eligibility status are not cognizable in a habeas corpus proceeding).
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.
