Glaze 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.
After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of imprisonment. Appellant later filed an amended pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that the convictions for the underlying felonies to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm were illegally obtained and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for the underlying felonies. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal and held Appellant's motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief moot, holding that Petitioner failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action and therefore failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue.
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 458 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-13-195 Opinion Delivered November 7, 2013 PRO SE APPELLANT S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 40LCV-12-91, HON. JODI RAINES DENNIS, JUDGE] CHARIELL ALI GLAZE APPELLANT v. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2010, appellant Chariell Ali Glaze was found guilty by a jury of the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 300 months imprisonment. In 2011, this court affirmed the conviction but remanded the matter for resentencing. Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464, 385 S.W.3d 203. On May 8, 2012, a new sentencing order was entered reflecting that appellant had been resentenced as a habitual offender to a term of 216 months imprisonment. In 2013, appellant, who was incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Lincoln County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court.1 In the petition, he contended that the convictions for the underlying felonies to the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm were illegally obtained and should have been expunged. In an amendment to the habeas petition, appellant 1 As of the date of this opinion, appellant remains incarcerated in Lincoln County. Cite as 2013 Ark. 458 alleged that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for the underlying felonies. The circuit court dismissed the habeas petition, and appellant lodged an appeal of that order in this court. Now before us is appellant s motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. We dismiss the appeal, and the motion is moot inasmuch as it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail on appeal. 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 appeal is without merit. Roberson v. State, 2013 Ark. 75 (per curiam); Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832 (2007) (per curiam). A writ of habeas corpus is proper only when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacked jurisdiction over the cause. Abernathy v. Norris, 2011 Ark. 335 (per curiam); Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575, 873 S.W.2d 524 (1994). 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 that he is illegally detained. Id. at 221, 226 S.W.3d at 798. The allegations raised by appellant constituted challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the prior judgments that resulted in appellant s being considered a felon under the law. The allegations did not call into question the trial court s jurisdiction or the facial validity of the judgment-and-commitment order entered when appellant was convicted of being 2 Cite as 2013 Ark. 458 a felon in possession of a firearm. Assertions of trial error in the prior proceedings did not implicate the facial validity of the judgment or the jurisdiction of the trial court. Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (per curiam); see also McHaney v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 306 (per curiam). If there was a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to be made in the trial court to the felon-inpossession charge, it could, and should, have been made at the time of trial. See Bliss, 2012 Ark. 315. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy. Bliss, 2012 Ark. 315; Culbertson v. State, 2012 Ark. 112 (per curiam). Appellant offered nothing to demonstrate that the trial court in his case did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear and determine cases involving violations of criminal statutes. Id. We will treat allegations of void or illegal sentences similarly to the way that we treat problems of subject-matter jurisdiction. Friend v. State, 364 Ark. 315, 219 S.W.3d 123 (2005) (citing Taylor v. State, 354 Ark. 450, 125 S.W.3d 174 (2003)). However, a habeas-corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case, and it is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction relief. Bliss, 2012 Ark. 315; Van v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 287 (per curiam); Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). When a petitioner in a habeas proceeding failed to raise a claim within the purview of a habeas action, the petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a basis for a writ of habeas corpus to issue. Benton v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 385 (per curiam); Henderson v. White, 2011 Ark. 361 (per curiam). Appellant clearly did not meet his burden, and, therefore, he could not prevail on appeal. See Douthitt v. State, 2011 Ark. 416 (per curiam). 3 Cite as 2013 Ark. 458 Appeal dismissed; motion moot. Chariell Ali Glaze, pro se appellant. No response. 4
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.
