Willis 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 was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault in the second degree. Subsequently, Appellant filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, contending that the writ should issue on the grounds that (1) he was not afforded a speedy trial and was denied due process with respect to his right to a speedy trial, (2) he was subjected to abuse while in custody awaiting trial, and (3) he did not enjoy effective assistance of counsel at trial. The petition was denied, and Appellant appealed. Before the Supreme Court were Appellant's motions seeking an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and for the State to duplicate the brief for him. The Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motions moot, concluding that Appellant could not prevail on appeal because Appellant's claims were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 312
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
11-436
Opinion Delivered
CARL EDWARD WILLIS
Appellant
v.
RAY HOBBS
Appellee
July 27, 2011
APPELLANT’S PRO SE MOTIONS
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
BRIEF AND FOR STATE TO
PROVIDE COPIES OF BRIEF
[JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, CV 2010-651, HON. JODI
RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Carl Willis was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault in the second
degree and sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. In 2010, he 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 grounds that (1) he was not
afforded a speedy trial and was denied due process with respect to his right to a speedy trial,
(2) he was subjected to abuse while in custody awaiting trial, and (3) he did not enjoy
effective assistance of counsel at trial.
The petition was denied, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court. Now before us
are appellant’s motions seeking an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief and for the State
to duplicate the brief for him. We need not address the merits of the motions because it is clear
Cite as 2011 Ark. 312
from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed, and the motions are 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 demonstrate that the court in his case lacked jurisdiction or
that the commitment entered was illegal on its face.
If there was a speedy trial issue to be raised, it could have been raised in the trial court.
The right to a speedy trial may be waived, and the issue is not cognizable in a habeas
-2-
Cite as 2011 Ark. 312
proceeding. Daniels, 2011 Ark. 192; Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 6 (per curiam) (citing Barker v.
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972)); see also Eubanks v. Humphrey, 334 Ark. 21, 972 S.W.2d 234
(1998).
With respect to appellant’s claims that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel
in the trial court, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable in a habeas
proceeding. Tryon v. State, 2011 Ark. 76 (per curiam); Grimes v. State, 2010 Ark. 97 (per
curiam). Allegations concerning counsel’s effectiveness are properly raised in a timely petition
pursuant to our postconviction rule, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). Moore,
2010 Ark. 380; Hill v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 287 (per curiam). A petition for writ of habeas corpus
is not a substitute for proceeding under Rule 37.1. See Tryon, 2011 Ark. 76; see also Johnson v.
Hobbs, 2010 Ark. 459 (per curiam); Rickenbaker v. Norris, 361 Ark. 291, 206 S.W.3d 220
(2005).
As to appellant’s contention that he was mistreated while in custody, the assertion is not
one that calls into question the trial court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the commitment. A
habeas proceeding is a narrow remedy, not a “catch-all” to address all matters related to a
criminal charge or judgment of conviction.
Appeal dismissed; motions 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.
