Case Law Williams v. State, CR–15–462

Williams v. State, CR–15–462

Document Cited Authorities (7) Cited in (12) Related

Fred L. Williams, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Kent Holt, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM

In 2014, appellant Fred Lee Williams entered a plea of guilty in the Drew County Circuit Court to a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. In 2015, Williams, who was incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Lee County, filed in the trial court in Drew County a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition should have been filed in the circuit court in the county where Williams was incarcerated. Williams brings this appeal. Williams has also filed a motion to file a belated reply brief. We affirm the trial court's order. The motion to file a belated reply brief is moot.

A circuit court's denial of habeas relief will not be reversed unless the court's findings are clearly erroneous.

Nelson v. State, 2015 Ark. 168, at 2, 2015 WL 1805429 (per curiam). A finding 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 committed. Bryant v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 287, 2014 WL 2813280 (per curiam).

The trial court did not err in its decision holding that Williams had filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus in the wrong county. Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody if the prisoner is incarcerated within the State of Arkansas,1 unless the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16–112–201 to –208 (Repl. 2006). A proceeding under Act 1780 is properly commenced in the court in which the conviction was entered. Ark. Code Ann. § 16–112–201(a).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 16–112–105 (Repl. 2006) requires that certain procedural requirements be met by a petitioner asking a court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The writ must be directed to the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16–112–105(b)(1). Additionally, the writ should be issued by a court that has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Tyson v. State, 2014 Ark. 421, at ¶2, 444 S.W.3d 361, 363 (per curiam). Otherwise, although a court may have subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the writ, a court does not have personal jurisdiction to issue and make...

4 cases
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Henington v. State
"...Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16–112–201 to –208 (Repl. 2006). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448, 476 S.W.3d 154 (per curiam). A proceeding under Act 1780 is properly commenced in the court in which the conviction was entered. Ark. Code Ann...."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2017
Leach v. State, CR–17–28
"...2006), it is properly addressed to the court where the conviction was entered under section 16–112–201(a). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448 at 2, 476 S.W.3d 154, 155 (per curiam). Leach did not invoke the Act. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in declining to issue a writ of habeas ..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2017
Grissom v. State, CR–16–678
"...(Repl. 2006), it is properly addressed to the court where the conviction was entered under 16–112–201(a). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448 at 2, 476 S.W.3d 154, 155 (per curiam). Grissom did not raise grounds for relief under the Act. Even though the trial court addressed the merits of the..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Jones v. Kelley, CV-16-381
"...1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006). Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 448, 476 S.W.3d 154 (per curiam). Here, Jones did not bring any proceeding under Act 1780. Although Jones was incarcerated in a facility in Lincoln Count..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Henington v. State
"...Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16–112–201 to –208 (Repl. 2006). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448, 476 S.W.3d 154 (per curiam). A proceeding under Act 1780 is properly commenced in the court in which the conviction was entered. Ark. Code Ann...."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2017
Leach v. State, CR–17–28
"...2006), it is properly addressed to the court where the conviction was entered under section 16–112–201(a). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448 at 2, 476 S.W.3d 154, 155 (per curiam). Leach did not invoke the Act. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in declining to issue a writ of habeas ..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2017
Grissom v. State, CR–16–678
"...(Repl. 2006), it is properly addressed to the court where the conviction was entered under 16–112–201(a). Williams v. State , 2015 Ark. 448 at 2, 476 S.W.3d 154, 155 (per curiam). Grissom did not raise grounds for relief under the Act. Even though the trial court addressed the merits of the..."
Document | Arkansas Supreme Court – 2016
Jones v. Kelley, CV-16-381
"...1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006). Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 448, 476 S.W.3d 154 (per curiam). Here, Jones did not bring any proceeding under Act 1780. Although Jones was incarcerated in a facility in Lincoln Count..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex