Fulton v. State

514 S.W.3d 461

Deontae Antonio FULTON, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CV–16–929

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered March 16, 2017

Deontae Antonio Fulton, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Pamela Rumpz, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

PER CURIAM

In 2015, appellant Deontae Antonio Fulton was found guilty by a jury in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of first-degree murder and sentenced to 420 months' imprisonment. On direct appeal of the judgment, Fulton argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment because Atarius Bishop, a witness for the State, was not credible and because he was an accomplice whose testimony was not corroborated. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Fulton v. State , 2016 Ark. App. 28, 2016 WL 247054.

In 2016, Fulton, who is incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Chicot County, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Chicot County Circuit Court. In the petition, Fulton contended that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment. He argued, as he had done on direct appeal, that Atarius Bishop's testimony had not supported the guilty verdict. He also named other witnesses for the State that he contended gave testimony that did not support the verdict. He concluded his petition with claims that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial.

The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing on the ground that Fulton had not stated a ground for the writ. Fulton, who remains incarcerated in Chicot County, brings this appeal.

A circuit court's decision on a petition for writ of habeas corpus will be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Hobbs v. Gordon , 2014 Ark. 225, at 5, 434 S.W.3d 364, 367. A decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Smith v. Kelley , 2016 Ark. 307, at 2, 2016 WL 4919890.

A writ of habeas corpus is proper when a judgment of conviction is invalid on its face or when a trial court lacks jurisdiction over the cause. Philyaw v. Kelley , 2015 Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 503. Under our statute, a petitioner for the writ who does not allege his actual innocence and proceed under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas 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. Ark. Code Ann. § 16–112–103(a)(1) (Repl. 2016). Unless the petitioner in proceedings for a writ of habeas corpus can show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the commitment was invalid on its face, there is no basis for a finding that a writ of habeas corpus should issue. Russell v. Kelley , 2016 Ark. 224, 2016 WL 3131007 ; Fields v. Hobbs , 2013 Ark. 416, 2013 WL 5775566.

Fulton concedes in his brief both that the Pulaski County Circuit Court had jurisdiction in his case and that the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a judgment is not a ground for the writ. He argues, nevertheless, that the writ should have been issued by the Chicot County Circuit Court to effect his release from custody on the grounds that the judgment was rendered invalid because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and because there were due-process violations at his trial. He further alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective. Fulton asserts that a miscarriage of justice will occur if this court does not reverse the circuit court's decision to deny the habeas petition.

We affirm the circuit court order because Fulton did not state a ground on which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued. Fulton offered nothing in his petition to demonstrate that the trial court did not have jurisdiction in his case, and he acknowledges that the issue of whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain the judgment is not a ground for the writ. This court has repeatedly held that challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are due-process claims that are not cognizable in habeas proceedings. Gardner v. Hobbs , 2014 Ark. 346, 439 S.W.3d 663 (per curiam). A habeas proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his or her case, and it does not provide an opportunity to...