Ollis Heard v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

OLLIS HEARD

APPELLANT

v.

LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

APPELLEE

98-1120

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY,

NO. CIV-98-341-2-3

HONORABLE FRED D. DAVIS CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Ollis Heard was convicted of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced as an habitual offender to seventy years imprisonment. Appellant's conviction was affirmed in Heard v. State, 322 Ark. 553, 910 S.W.2d 663 (1995). Subsequently, appellant filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied appellant's petition because appellant had failed to state a claim upon which habeas relief could issue. We affirm.

We have repeatedly held that a writ of habeas corpus will issue only if the commitment was invalid on its face or the committing court lacked jurisdiction. McConaughy v. Lockhart, 310 Ark. 686, 840 S.W.2d 166 (1992); Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991); Wallace v. Willock, 301 Ark. 69, 781 S.W.2d 478 (1989). A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. A writ of habeas corpus will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. The remedy in such a case is direct appeal. Birchett v. State, 303 Ark. 220, 795 S.W.2d 53 (1990). A writ of habeas corpus will not be issued as asubstitute for postconviction relief. 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" he is so detained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-103 (1987).

First, we note that appellant concedes in his argument section that habeas corpus is not the proper remedy for his case. Despite appellant's recognition of this fact, we decline to reach the merits of appellant's issue on appeal because his abstract is flagrantly deficient.

It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal is confined to that which is abstracted. King v. State, 325 Ark. 313, 925 S.W.2d 159 (1996); Midgett v. State, 316 Ark. 553, 873 S.W.2d 165 (1994). The reason underlying our abstracting rule is basic - there is only one transcript, there are seven judges on this court, and it is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine the one transcript. Bunn v. State, 320 Ark. 516, 898 S.W.2d 450 (1995). We will not explore the record for prejudicial error, except in death or life-imprisonment cases where a motion, objection, or request on the point at issue was made before the trial judge. Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304, 854 S.W.2d 332 (1993). Appellant challenges the records in case CR92-100. In support of his argument, appellant refers to an arrest report, documents from CR92-44, and testimony taken at trial in CR92-100. Appellant, however, has failed to abstract any of these materials. Because we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the issue on appeal due to appellant's deficient abstract, we affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's habeas petition.

Affirmed.